Concordia News: Please Post Here

[DocF]

Concordia was a large ship...but the majority of the superstructure above the main hull is lightweight, non steel (keeps the weight down, thus allowing to build so high).

 

Oh Lord! I was going to break down this post and correct your misplaced assumptions, but it will suffice to point out the errors contained above. This class of ship has a superstructure that is virtually 100% steel, not lightweight materials.

 

These ships can carry such a massive superstructure account they are flat bottomed and slab sided.

 

Cruise ships are shallow draft with most drawing less than 26 feet. A cargo ship this size would draw at least 46 feet. The hull form is useless except as a cruise ship.

 

I can think, therefore I ignore your posts. The illogic contained herein explains why.

 

Doc:mad:

[cruiserfanfromct]

There's an article published today by Discovery News -- most of it is old news but they mention a 148 page report by Costa that admits the ship is progressively warping and the bow sinking and that the rocks it is lying on could crack and the ship could plunge into deep waters.

 

Does anyone remember if that report was posted here or in another thread?

 

Thanks

 

http://news.discovery.com/earth/costa-concordia-salvage-delay-120827.html

 

"I believe a structural collapse of the ship's beam and a plunge into deep waters is very likely," Capt Barbini said.

 

Barbini, who wrote a detailed report and sent it to the mayor of Giglio, believes that the most risky moment will be the rolling of the vessel and the subsequent refloating.

 

His worries are partly confirmed by a little publicized report by Costa Cruises. Written last May, the 148-page report admits that the ship is progressively warping and the bow has sunk by more than 35 inches.

 

According to the daily Il Tirreno, the report confirmed that the two pieces of rock on which the ship balances have worrisome cracks.

 

"Computer models have shown that five foot waves, which are likely to occur in winter, can produce a real risk of deep plunging," the report read.

 

The event would be catastrophic, with "polluting materials" spilling in the island's pristine waters.

 

Although more than 2,200 cubic meters of heavy fuel have been safely pumped out the ship, the report revealed that some 243 cubic meters of fuel, declared unpumpable, remain in the Concordia's most inaccessible tanks.

 

"The entire wreck removal operation is filled with risky moments. Refloating and towing away safely such a wreck sounds like a miracle to me. It's pretty much like Lazarus walking out of the grave," Barbini said.

[SomeBeach]

"the report confirmed that the two pieces of rock on which the ship balances have worrisome cracks."

CT, I remember something about cracks in the rocks the ship is resting on. The talk was that the Bridge wing is balanced on a rock at the front and the aft on another but much of what's between is not resting on anything.

Seem to recall some video showing that too. At the time video was made, the cracks were not wide but you could clearly see them.

As to when, it's been more than a few months ago. May have been one of the specials on Concordia.

[MorganMars]

Here is one of the videos http://news.discovery.com/earth/video-exclusive-underwater-damage-concordia-120218.html

 

Regards,

MorganMars

 

"the report confirmed that the two pieces of rock on which the ship balances have worrisome cracks."

 

 

CT, I remember something about cracks in the rocks the ship is resting on. The talk was that the Bridge wing is balanced on a rock at the front and the aft on another but much of what's between is not resting on anything.

 

Seem to recall some video showing that too. At the time video was made, the cracks were not wide but you could clearly see them.

 

As to when, it's been more than a few months ago. May have been one of the specials on Concordia.

[SomeBeach]

Here is one of the videos http://news.discovery.com/earth/video-exclusive-underwater-damage-concordia-120218.html

 

Regards,

MorganMars

 

 

Thanks Morgan Mars. I had an errand to run and then was going to look for the video.

I had forgotten about that rock coming up on the 4 minute mark. It was pretty wide.

[cruiserfanfromct]

Thanks SB and MM -- interesting stuff.

 

Meanwhile from what I understand from this article in Giglio News that came out today, the Mayor of Giglio wants the wreck out ASAP -- he's asking Titan / Micoperi to work 24 hours a day nonstop until the wreck is removed. Quite a tall order methinks. The islanders seemed peeved that they are being kept in the dark regarding the salvage operations.

 

http://www.giglionews.it/2012082658944/news/isola-del-giglio/la-minoranza-qil-sindaco-batta-i-pugniq.html

[loubetti]

Oh Lord! I was going to break down this post and correct your misplaced assumptions, but it will suffice to point out the errors contained above. This class of ship has a superstructure that is virtually 100% steel, not lightweight materials.

 

These ships can carry such a massive superstructure account they are flat bottomed and slab sided.

 

Cruise ships are shallow draft with most drawing less than 26 feet. A cargo ship this size would draw at least 46 feet. The hull form is useless except as a cruise ship.

 

Doc:mad:

 

Indeed, the superstructure is steel, not aluminum, as was once used on some ships (QE2 being an excellent example). Your other comments are also accurate.

[Tonka's Skipper]

Doc, most tankers are built for 25 to 30 years of good service. Most VLCC's are about 15 to 20 years. None that I ever sailed on or heard of had 1 boiler, always 2. As for under powered..........there you are right , many few.they were built for economy of operationfor For every one else..........like so many stories the grounding of the Valdez known to the public is more fairy tale then fact.

 

The Captain of the Valdez was not drunk and had a very excellent record at sea. In fact his license was returned and he went back to sea and teaches now.

 

The third Officer is the one responsible for the grounding and admitted in hearings that he waited to long to call the Master to the Bridge.

 

The Extent of the oil spill was greatly worsened for actions of Exxon and the USCG.

 

E.I., the 2 spill barges that were both out of service at the time of the grounding and the lack of requiring Pilotage in that area..............I have been there and seen it myself.

 

 

 

The Concordia will never sail again. The hull will be in this position for a year and is slowly grinding away on the rocks and is warping and racking each day. The Sea water will by now easily gone though the entire vessel by capillary action.

 

 

The hull would need to be totally gutted.......everything down to bear steel. This means, main engines, all other machinery, all electrical systems....everything.......The hull would have to be blasted down to bear steel and aluminum and re coated inside (including all tanks and compartments and outside. Then add in all the twisting and distortions the hull will have now. Now add in all the replacement equipment and the difficultly of doing this in a already build hull.I have spoken with a number of friends in the industry.the simple fact is it not going to happen and all the (will do respect to my friends here)...all that uneducated talk about her sailing again will not make it happen................she will be scraped. Not just my opinion but the facts.

 

 

AKK

Edited August 27, 2012 by Tonka's Skipper

[Tonka's Skipper]

I note from the Giglio webcam that another ring of the funnel has been removed. The uptakes are all out, so only the bottom ring of the funnel is left.

 

Doc

 

 

You know Doc now that she is slowly being taken apart.........its really kind of sad!

 

 

AKK

[MorganMars]

My pleasure, Micki,

 

I knew right where to find it based on research I had done earlier on the anchors.

 

Regards,

MorganMars

Thanks Morgan Mars. I had an errand to run and then was going to look for the video.

 

I had forgotten about that rock coming up on the 4 minute mark. It was pretty wide.

[stella_mare]

The Giglio accident was Schettino's THIRD known brush.

 

First was aboard Atlantica as he entered Rostock/Warnemunde.

 

Second was 4 weeks before the accident aboard Concordia when he left Marseille.

 

Third was also aboard Concordia at Giglio.

 

All done in the short time that he had upgraded from Staff Captain to full Captain.

 

Which begs the question, surely, was he READY to have the proverbial trainer wheels taken off....he seemed to get ahead of himself on three occasions, the previous two occasions did not get any form of censure from his superiors, so it is quite likely that he thought he had done no wrong...til his third brush.

 

The sail-by at Giglio was for Palombo's benefit....the same Palombo who told media that he "had reservations about his (Schettino) abilities".

 

Is it not possible therefore that Schettino, knowing that Palombo didn't much care for his style of captaincy, went for the sail-by as a way of "I'll SHOW you how good I am"?

 

Afterall, Palombo made it perfectly clear that despite training Schettino, he didn't much care for the man or his abilities....and what about another bridge officer on Concordia that night, his opinion of Schettino "he drove a ship like it was a Ferrari", Pellegrino also stated that Schettino was "a tough authoritarian" too.

 

So this accident was GOING to happen eventually...Schettino was not only allowed to continue as an unmonitored captain after two previous mistakes within a short space of time, but he was also dealing with two-faced fellow officers and superiors.

 

After running too fast into Rostock/Warnemunde, after leaving Marseille in force 10 winds when the other cruise ships remained in port for their safety....these two incidents should have proved that Schettino WAS NOT captaincy material.

 

However, it was missed or ignored and he went on to Giglio on that fateful night in January and finally he was stopped in his tracks...but not until he had a catastrophic accident that cost lives.

 

If Palombo, Pellegrino, Bosio, Christidis, Ambrosio & Coronica...and the others who worked with him...were so critical of his abilities and captaincy BEFORE the Giglio accident, the question MUST be asked as to why they did not say something sooner...had they of done, chances are that the accident WOULD NOT have happened.

 

CostaSmurfette - it seems that you jump to a lot of assumptions based on media reports. Where is the evidence that all of the people you mention in the last paragraph above were critical of Schettino BEFORE the Giglio accident? Granted, Schettino worked under Palombo and may or may not have been "written up" or had to be "put in his place" a few times. At least from what we understand that Palombo says after the incident. This from the guy who literally wrote the BOOK on bowing! As for Pellegrino, IMO only, much of his testimony and statements read like a guy who is itching for a promotion to a newly vacated Commander's position.

 

Edit: To be clear, Schettino is responsible for what went down that night. But investigators have a big job in trying to discern the truth given the questionable statements by the company and others who are saving their own skins.

Edited August 28, 2012 by stella_mare

[CostaSmurfette]

Stella mare...

 

Palombo was on Giglio that night and it was he who put Schettino through his final training.

 

Pellegrino has basically shared his opinion of his former workmate/fellow officer.

 

Bosio was deadheading to Savona, he had been captain aboard Costa Serena.

 

Christidis, Ambrosio & Coronica were on the bridge of Concordia at the time of the accident...all three were on duty before, during and after the emergency...Christidis was in the same lifeboat as Schettino.

 

It's all well documented amongst the flotsam & jetsum.

[stella_mare]

Yes, the relationships, titles and locations are well understood. But, unless I misunderstood what you wrote (and you do tend to go back and forth), you stated that they were all critical of Schettino before the night of the 13th.

[CostaSmurfette]

Yes, the relationships, titles and locations are well understood. But, unless I misunderstood what you wrote (and you do tend to go back and forth), you stated that they were all critical of Schettino before the night of the 13th.

 

Yep...they were all critical of Schettino...but as with every whistleblower, they kept quiet, they did not step up to the plate to their immediate superior's or head office bosses and voice their concerns about Schettino...

 

They waited til after the event and then came out with the "well...we always said he was a problem" speeches.

 

Any Tom, Dick or Harriet can come out and say these things after a cock-up...that doesn't do any good.

 

The problem is the fear of belittlement, disbelief, being labelled as a troublemaker, being overlooked for future promotion or even being sacked.

 

Given that so many industries and sports still outlaw those who dare be critical of others (especially high ranking others), the ethos of not speaking out when someone has made an error of judgement is rife.

 

This hiding behind the apron strings and only coming out and saying that someone isn't up to the job has got to stop...and maybe, just maybe, this accident will finally give other officers and senior rankings the cahunas to question an order, to tell a senior officer or manager that he or she did something risky...

 

Everyone who has been spoken to about Schettino and how he worked has come out with the "well we always knew he was an idiot"...well why the hell didn't they say it BEFORE things got so bad that 32 people had to die?

 

Boils down to basic fear of losing face, losing employment and losing any chance of re-employment due to be labelled a troublemaker or whistleblower or telltale.

[balf]

[quote name=CostaSmurfette;

 

Boils down to basic fear of losing face' date=' losing employment and losing any chance of re-employment due to be labelled a troublemaker or whistleblower or telltale.[/quote]

 

So that would be a real inducement to bubble a guy they thought was a danger. Why don't you join the real world instead of spouting your evermore outlandish theories and what might have beens.

 

David

[CostaSmurfette]

So that would be a real inducement to bubble a guy they thought was a danger. Why don't you join the real world instead of spouting your evermore outlandish theories and what might have beens.

 

David

 

Get it right mate if you are going to pick fault.

 

What I said was that people ONLY spoke out about Schettino AFTER he killed 32 people, the KNEW he was a loose canon, they did NOTHING, said NOTHING until AFTER the event.

 

The reason for NOT saying a thing against him...and thus potentially saving those 32 lives is SIMPLE....

 

They have an ethos of NOT speaking out for fear of losing face, losing employment and losing any chance of re-employment due to be labelled a troublemaker or whistleblower or telltale.

 

So it is EASIER to ignore stupidity, EASIER to ignore errors of judgement...let the one making those errors and acting stupidly to continue doing so and then if by chance someone actually dies as a result, then come out with the "he was ALWAYS a friggin' idiot"..."he was ALWAYS a risk taker"..

 

For crying out loud Balf....

 

Whistleblowers are NOT welcome, they ARE persecuted for speaking out against a stupid or dangerous coworker.

 

They feel that it is safer to stay quiet and just hope to God that no-one dies....well on Concordia none of them hoped hard enough, did they?

 

32 people died cos a few people who knew that Scettino was a risk taker couldn't or wouldn't speak up...it took 32 people dying BEFORE they had the balls to speak out against him..

 

WHY DID THEY WAIT?

 

Cos they were bloody scared of recriminations from their employers and fellow employees...and that Balf, is the problem in almost every industry, sport and association/organisation...no-one dares to speak out against someone...or as you so elegantly put it "bubble them" cos they know that they will pay for doing so with their job and/or their reputation.

 

This level of intimidation needs to stop before more lives are lost as a result of coworkers not speaking out when someone cocks things up time and time and time again.

[Uniall]

Balf

 

I got an email today from an old time law enforcment pal and partner who now serves in top management with the Miami/Dade Tranist Police Department. He has added a new personal motto to his official emails:

"Never argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

Edited August 28, 2012 by Uniall

[CostaSmurfette]

4 weeks before Giglio something could have been done about Schettino had his critics actually spoken out about him.....4 weeks before he took a course for reasons best known to himself that killed 32 people.

 

4 weeks prior to the accident he left Marseille like a greyhound chasing a rabbit in a force 10 gale.

 

The same bridge officers were aboard Concordia that day as on the fateful night.

 

Not one of them spoke out about the way he tried to race a storm. Not one of them tried to stop him leaving Marseille in what were obviously bad conditions...bad enough to have captains aboard other cruise ships, ferries and freighters delay their departure.

 

Marseille suffers rip tides and frequently storm force winds across the Gulf de Lion.

 

Any competant captain would have held off til the winds had died down...but not Schettino...he sailed out of port regardless.

 

Had those fellow officers reported what had happened, chances are Schettino would have had a senior captain placed on board to monitor his behaviour, maybe even removed for retraining or re-evaluation...he certainly would not have been left in charge of the Concordia without some form of censure.

 

But his fellow officers turned a blind eye...just as they did aboard Costa Atlantica in Warnemunde.

 

4 weeks after leaving Marseille in stormy weather at full tilt, he hit rocks off Giglio resulting in 32 deaths.

 

As much as it is unforgiveable what he did that night, it is also unforgiveable that those around him covered for him, ignored him, turned a blind eye towards him just 4 weeks beforehand and previously aboard Costa Atlantica.

 

They could have prevented Giglio had they spoken up about him....

 

Four short weeks....that is all it was from being an idiot in Marseille to taking the lives of 32 passengers and crew and NO-ONE said a word...

 

Each and every officer and crewmember who worked with Schettino is culpable for what happened on January 13...they saw him make mistakes, they saw him make judgement errors and yet they did NOTHING.

 

Schettino stuffed it up royally...but so did his subordinates by turning that blind eye 4 weeks before.

[Max49]

Smurf, it just doesn't work that way in real life. Tattletales and informants can't save the world from some thing that has not happened yet.

What are they going to say to the company that made and trusted that person to be captain of the ship? "I think he drives too fast and takes risks". "Well no, he did'nt hit any thing". Should every company be forced to hire a few physic fortune teller employees that know what's going to happen in advance?

Get over it , it's not the crews fault for not " crying about Schettino as captain, It's Schettino's fault because he was in charge and Costa's fault for using very poor judgement in trusting him as capt of a ship with 4000 lives depending on him.

He obviously did not earn the respect of his crew but it is not their job to question the top brasses decision to make him captain.

Do you work in human resources?

Edited August 29, 2012 by Max49

[balf]

. Should every company be forced to hire a few physic fortune teller employees that know what's going to happen in advance?

?

 

I pass, couldn't have put it better myself.

 

David

[balf]

[quote name=DocF;

 

I know enough about salvage work to want to use the correct term. I also am' date=' as a former English major, a bit fussy about using the correct word.

 

Doc:p[/quote]

 

Pedant?

 

David

[CostaSmurfette]

I pass, couldn't have put it better myself.

 

David

 

Smurf, it just doesn't work that way in real life. Tattletales and informants can't save the world from some thing that has not happened yet.

What are they going to say to the company that made and trusted that person to be captain of the ship? "I think he drives too fast and takes risks". "Well no, he did'nt hit any thing". Should every company be forced to hire a few physic fortune teller employees that know what's going to happen in advance?

Get over it , it's not the crews fault for not " crying about Schettino as captain, It's Schettino's fault because he was in charge and Costa's fault for using very poor judgement in trusting him as capt of a ship with 4000 lives depending on him.

He obviously did not earn the respect of his crew but it is not their job to question the top brasses decision to make him captain.

Do you work in human resources?

 

Totally missing the point as per usual...par for the course around here though, so not exactly a surprise.

 

OK...simple English...

 

Four (4) weeks BEFORE the Giglio accident, Schettino was Captain of Concordia when he took a significant risk in leaving Marseille in a force 10...despite other Captains on other ships remaining in port and delaying their respective departures.

 

Schettino left Marseille at full tilt into a head wind. Fortunately the ship did not come to grief.

 

Now those same officers aboard Concordia in Marseille were on the bridge when Concordia hit the rocks on Giglio.

 

Those officers did not...DID NOT...complain about the Marseille departure until AFTER the Giglio accident.

 

Now....had those officers complained about Marseille either on the day or shortly thereafter then perhaps...just perhaps...we might not have had a tragedy 4 weeks later in Giglio.

 

Had they spoken up about Marseille instead of ignoring it, and had Head Office known that Schettino had taken a significant risk in Marseille, they would almost definitely have either removed Schettino as Captain or placed him under the watchful eye of a more senior Captain for guidance to ensure that Schettino did not make such errors again.

 

By saying that Schettino was a loose canon and dangerous is all fine and dandy after the accident, but it doesn't help matters nor does it bring back the 32 who died.

 

Those officers had 4 weeks tween Marseille and Giglio to speak out against Schettino, to voice any concerns or worries about his behaviour, perfomance or abilities.

 

They did not.

 

End result, Schettino was allowed to continue his own merry way totally uncensured and Concordia ends up holed and on her side with 32 bodybags on the quayside.

 

If only those officers HAD spoken out about Marseille...if they had done so, Giglio might never have happened.

 

So there is no psychic power required...Marseille happened PRIOR to Giglio...and Warnemunde happened PRIOR to Marseille.

 

They should have said something to someone about his risk taking and they did not do so.

 

Bet they wish they had done now...

[clive and anne]

Message to Tonkas Skipper

With more emphasis being more on the ship being able to withstand the stresses of the parbuckle when does you, our expert, believe the "grout bags" mentioned in the TM video of the salvage would be deployed to support the vessel whilst the parbuckle is ready to happen. Will it be when the ship is stabalised or before.

[Max49]

Oh my, I did not know that Costa officials did not know he took a significant risk in leaving Marseille in a force 10. You would have thought that they would have heard about this before the Giglio disaster.

[Ken711]

Finally some photos of the work being performed on the port side. You can see that the hull has been patched where the rock pierced it. Looks like all the preliminary work going on welding supports to the hull from which the caissons will be attached.