Concordia News: Please Post Here

[glojo]

Glojo and ChengKP, thank you for the insightful questions and answers posts.

I think the thanks should go to Chengkp for his patience and understanding :o

 

Chengkp

My comments regarding lifeboats leaving the ship whilst not fully laden were based on witness reports which I hope we accept can at times be 'distorted\exaggerated'

 

Are modern cruise ships expected to be able to put all passengers and crew into the lifeboats\rafts from just one side of the ship?

 

It was however noticeable that lifeboats from the ship made multiple runs to and from the ship ferrying passengers ashore. I am saying passengers as opposed to crew as we all saw footage of passengers being collected by those returning lifeboats. My immediate thoughts were...

 

What would have happened if this abandonment had happened out of sight of land! Once those lifeboats left the ship, would there be any return trips?

 

I accept that it got to be impossible to lower those rafts on the port side but a significant number of the lifeboats were launched, could the life-rafts have been pushed over the side in their containers and then deployed in the water?

 

Are life-rafts used only for the crew?

 

If that ship had been upright and on fire, how would the crew get into those life-rafts?

 

I ask this last question as jumping from the upper deck wearing a life-jacket might be the last thing that person would ever do!!!:eek:

 

I make this last statement having had the bitter experience of seeing quite literally dozens of dead bodies floating in the water, the cause of death being a broken neck caused by an inflated life-jacket breaking the casualties neck as they entered the water from a great height. I have NO IDEA how these modern jackets work but gravity will insist that our bodies will be travelling at a significant rate of knots when we enter the water. The bouyancy aid or life-jacket is designed to keep us afloat and also to keep our head above water which is at odds with what gravity wants to impose on us!! (Yuh canna defy the laws of fizzics Jim) Our bodies are travelling at high speed and we will understandably get a good dunking as we disappear under the waves but the life-jacket tries its hardest to stop the upper body from going under the surface.

 

I have seen literature that talks about protective shutes that are placed over the side of a cruise ship (or I guess any other ship with such a high freeboard) Are these shutes available now, or are they a thing for the future? I have no idea how they are supposed to work as I have visions of folks landing on top of each other and suffering from awful friction burns as they slide down those tubes. Having said that this is me with my imagination running amok and no doubt these tubes have been well designed and well suited for the task they are designed for.

 

I genuinely appreciate all the time you are taking to reply to my bombardment of questions and a last comment about my describing the style of the captain of a warship. Would it be fair to suggest they might have a slightly different relationship to their crew when we compare it to the merchant marine?

 

I stand to be corrected on this issue but I believe that on a modern submarine the commanding officer may actually dine with his officers but on your frigates and above, in the Royal Navy this man dines, alone, lives alone and is very much isolated from the rest of the crew and his officers although 'isolated' might be a poor choice of wording. A good captain will get to know his crew and no doubt have some influence on the way it carries out its duties, but the running of the ship and all the other husbandry is as discussed... delegated.

 

I have only ever once seen any type of hesitation in the giving of a bridge command and whilst the consequenses were humiliating they were thankfully not damaging...

 

Captain had the ship and was doing a high speed approach to a Royal Yacht containing a head of state (thankfully NOT our Royal Yacht)

 

The idea was to sail alongside this yacht, fire across a gun-line and exchange gifts.

 

We made a high speed approach (which was in every sense of the word 'high speed') as we approached this vessel the captain stopped both engines and to ensure a quick reduction in speed both engines were ordered

 

'stop both engines'

 

Wheelhouse

 

Stop both engines... Both engines repeated Stop.

 

'slow astern'

 

From the wheelhouse came the fateful reply

 

'Say again your last'!!!!!

 

The intention was to put both engines slow astern and then consider a further command to match speeds before matching the speed of the Yacht, but this tiny delay saw us hurtle by the Emperor who was stood on his bridge wing, staring at this crazy warship churning up the sea as we tried to match speeds.

 

This incident happened in the Red Sea but I can assure everyone that this sea was not the same colour as the cheeks of our commanding officer!! He was not a happy bunny. This delay took place over just a few seconds...

 

I have read and accept the fact that on the Concordia there was not an issue regarding any type of delay due to the issues of language on that fateful night but having seen first hand what a few seconds delay can cause... I am very surprised that the helmsman was not fluent in the language used on the bridge... It made no sense then, ands it makes no sense now. Having said that you have taken your time and given an excellent account of why this happens.

 

All I can say is that is should not be allowed to happen and it should not need legislation to prevent it!!!

 

I hear what you say when you write:

 

This is one reason that the US requires only US citizens as crew on US ships.

 

 

Call me a cynic but I do have my doubts about why so many cruise ships are no longer registered in either the US or UK!! The official line is this change in registration is solely to allow the master of the ship to perform weddings!! Absolutely nothing to do with the type of legislation we are discussing, or indeed the minimum wage requirements our country demands.. It is solely to hold weddings!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

Thanks again and hopefully we will all see this man being held accountable and hopefully the whole cruise industry will finally learn some much needed lessons regarding how these operations are carried out. I say this as it is not uncommon for cruise ship captains to abandon their ship way before all passengers and crew have been put safely into lifeboats!! :eek:

[chengkp75]

I think the thanks should go to Chengkp for his patience and understanding :o

 

Chengkp

My comments regarding lifeboats leaving the ship whilst not fully laden were based on witness reports which I hope we accept can at times be 'distorted\exaggerated'

 

Are modern cruise ships expected to be able to put all passengers and crew into the lifeboats\rafts from just one side of the ship? No. There is 125% capacity in lifeboats/rafts, but this counts both sides.

 

It was however noticeable that lifeboats from the ship made multiple runs to and from the ship ferrying passengers ashore. I am saying passengers as opposed to crew as we all saw footage of passengers being collected by those returning lifeboats. My immediate thoughts were... I think many of these were picking up people from the rafts, which were drifting, and towing them even by the small coast guard boats is hazardous.

 

What would have happened if this abandonment had happened out of sight of land! Once those lifeboats left the ship, would there be any return trips? Maybe. It all depends on how much control the crew of the lifeboat have over the passengers. There are only 3-4 crew assigned to each boat, and 145 passengers.

 

I accept that it got to be impossible to lower those rafts on the port side but a significant number of the lifeboats were launched, could the life-rafts have been pushed over the side in their containers and then deployed in the water? Yes. Some were seen that night deployed on the side of the ship. The problem is that the inflating lanyard is only so long (it varies with how high the ship is where the rafts are stored), and once you get to the end of the lanyard, the weight of the raft will tug the lanyard hard enough to inflate the raft. This is probably what happened with the raft/s seen inflated on the ship's side. Also, the rafts are designed to self-deploy, meaning that if the ship were to sink without anyone deploying some rafts, when the ship sinks to 20 meters, a hydrostatic release will undo the securing strap and the raft will float to the surface. As the ship continues to sink, the lanyard will be pulled, and the raft will inflate. Now, I know what you're thinking: that lanyard is connected to the ship, and will eventually pull the raft down. Well, there is a "weak link" attachment that will break when the force on the lanyard is greater than the weight of the raft, so commonly when manually deploying rafts, untrained personnel will shove it over the side, only to see it inflate, the raft be caught by the wind and drift out, the weak link break, and the raft drift off to the horizon. When manually deploying the rafts, you have to tie the lanyard to the ship around the weak link, and when everyone is onboard, there is a knife in the raft to cut the lanyard.

 

Are life-rafts used only for the crew? Yes, the paying customers get the seats in the boats, the crew sit on the floor of the rafts.

 

If that ship had been upright and on fire, how would the crew get into those life-rafts? Cruise ship liferafts are of two types: davit launched and escape chute. Davit launched rafts are just like the lifeboats; you lower the raft using a davit arm to the embarkation deck, inflate it, and everyone gets in. It is lowered to the water, the hook released, and the raft crew winch in the hook, connect it to the next raft, and repeat.

 

Rafts with escape chutes or slides are launched from the deck, in groups of 3-4 rafts. When they reach the water, the first raft is inflated, and an inflatable slide (think airliner) or a round canvas chute with baffles in it deploys from the deck to the raft. The crew will slide down the slide or tumble down the chute (the baffles slow you down) into the first raft. The crew there will inflate another raft, and transfer the crew to this raft until full, cut it away, and repeat until all the rafts in the group are full.

 

I ask this last question as jumping from the upper deck wearing a life-jacket might be the last thing that person would ever do!!!:eek:

 

I make this last statement having had the bitter experience of seeing quite literally dozens of dead bodies floating in the water, the cause of death being a broken neck caused by an inflated life-jacket breaking the casualties neck as they entered the water from a great height. I have NO IDEA how these modern jackets work but gravity will insist that our bodies will be travelling at a significant rate of knots when we enter the water. The bouyancy aid or life-jacket is designed to keep us afloat and also to keep our head above water which is at odds with what gravity wants to impose on us!! (Yuh canna defy the laws of fizzics Jim) Our bodies are travelling at high speed and we will understandably get a good dunking as we disappear under the waves but the life-jacket tries its hardest to stop the upper body from going under the surface. Yes, untrained jumping from a height with a lifejacket on will generally snap your neck. We train that if you have to jump, remove the lifejacket and hold onto it. I've also worked with passengers many times to show them that the strap in the back of the jacket does not go through the "handle" loop at the top of the jacket. This "handle" loop is just that, something to grab onto to get a person into a boat/raft, or to control unruly children at muster drill. ;) Running the back strap through this loop will generally mean the person ends up in the water with the lifejacket holding them upside down!

 

I have seen literature that talks about protective shutes that are placed over the side of a cruise ship (or I guess any other ship with such a high freeboard) Are these shutes available now, or are they a thing for the future? I have no idea how they are supposed to work as I have visions of folks landing on top of each other and suffering from awful friction burns as they slide down those tubes. Having said that this is me with my imagination running amok and no doubt these tubes have been well designed and well suited for the task they are designed for. There are some videos out there about chutes and slides. I think Viking (raft mfg) has some interesting ones showing chutes in use.

 

I genuinely appreciate all the time you are taking to reply to my bombardment of questions and a last comment about my describing the style of the captain of a warship. Would it be fair to suggest they might have a slightly different relationship to their crew when we compare it to the merchant marine? Absolutely.

 

I stand to be corrected on this issue but I believe that on a modern submarine the commanding officer may actually dine with his officers but on your frigates and above, in the Royal Navy this man dines, alone, lives alone and is very much isolated from the rest of the crew and his officers although 'isolated' might be a poor choice of wording. A good captain will get to know his crew and no doubt have some influence on the way it carries out its duties, but the running of the ship and all the other husbandry is as discussed... delegated. On merchant ships, where there is only about 20 crew onboard, total, it is very different. All the officers eat together, have a common rec room, and the Captain is generally just one of us. A little different on cruise ships, where the deck and engine departments run to 100+, and you have the Hotel Director and other senior supervisors (notice that I differentiate between officers and hotel supervisors wearing stripes:p) that the Captain generally schmoozes with.

 

I have only ever once seen any type of hesitation in the giving of a bridge command and whilst the consequenses were humiliating they were thankfully not damaging...

 

Captain had the ship and was doing a high speed approach to a Royal Yacht containing a head of state (thankfully NOT our Royal Yacht)

 

The idea was to sail alongside this yacht, fire across a gun-line and exchange gifts.

 

We made a high speed approach (which was in every sense of the word 'high speed') as we approached this vessel the captain stopped both engines and to ensure a quick reduction in speed both engines were ordered

 

'stop both engines'

 

Wheelhouse

 

Stop both engines... Both engines repeated Stop.

 

'slow astern'

 

From the wheelhouse came the fateful reply

 

'Say again your last'!!!!!

 

The intention was to put both engines slow astern and then consider a further command to match speeds before matching the speed of the Yacht, but this tiny delay saw us hurtle by the Emperor who was stood on his bridge wing, staring at this crazy warship churning up the sea as we tried to match speeds.

 

This incident happened in the Red Sea but I can assure everyone that this sea was not the same colour as the cheeks of our commanding officer!! He was not a happy bunny. This delay took place over just a few seconds...

 

I have read and accept the fact that on the Concordia there was not an issue regarding any type of delay due to the issues of language on that fateful night but having seen first hand what a few seconds delay can cause... I am very surprised that the helmsman was not fluent in the language used on the bridge... It made no sense then, ands it makes no sense now. Having said that you have taken your time and given an excellent account of why this happens.

 

All I can say is that is should not be allowed to happen and it should not need legislation to prevent it!!!

 

I hear what you say when you write:

 

 

 

 

Call me a cynic but I do have my doubts about why so many cruise ships are no longer registered in either the US or UK!! The official line is this change in registration is solely to allow the master of the ship to perform weddings!! Absolutely nothing to do with the type of legislation we are discussing, or indeed the minimum wage requirements our country demands.. It is solely to hold weddings!:rolleyes: As we say over here, "its all about the Benjamins ($100 bills)". The one and only large US flag cruise ship pays 2-3 times the crew cost of an international crew. In the official report of the Carnival Splendor fire, the USCG points out that while many of the fire team members are from the hotel department, IMO regulations only require basic fire training for the deck and engine departments. So the poor guy/gal at the business end of the hose, has only the training received onboard. USCG regulations require that anyone who has an emergency duty, and this means the entire crew, have merchant mariner credentials and basic lifesaving and firefighting training, with the associated increased cost to the company for the credentialing and training.

 

Thanks again and hopefully we will all see this man being held accountable and hopefully the whole cruise industry will finally learn some much needed lessons regarding how these operations are carried out. I say this as it is not uncommon for cruise ship captains to abandon their ship way before all passengers and crew have been put safely into lifeboats!! :eek:

 

No problem, the reason I started posting on CC was due to the false information and understandings of the Carnival Triumph fire, and I decided to use my experience to help cruisers better understand the workings of these massive and complex ships that they enjoy so much.

[Max49]

Hi guys,

I have not participated in this thread for a long time but I read it almost every day and I learn alot from the posts and I can find all the news links that I read right here .

Part of the reason I haven't participated much lately is because there are so many, much more knowledgeable people that make me realize how little I know about ships.

 

Having said that, when I read this

 

"Captain

'Steer 215'

 

helmsman

'Steer 210?'

 

He was sort of mumbling that reply and the voice gave the impression he was unsure.

 

The captain then chatted about the consequences of what would happen if the helmsman steered the course he had intended with words similar to,

 

'If we steer 210, we will run the ship onto the rocks... steer 215!'"

 

In the spirit of "an inch is as good as a mile", could Schettino's lawyers argue that even though a competent captain would not be so wreckless to navigate a ship that size, especially at night, and at such a high speed is not a good idea; but if the helmsman had actually steered the rudder to 215* immediately, the ship may have missed the rock by mere inches, in which case we would have never knew any thing about it, or possibly , perhaps the ship may have just grazed the rock and possibly not punctured through the hull?

 

As some of you may remember, I am no Schettino fan , but as someone who knows so much less than most of you, I just thought I would let you know that in my opinion, unfortunately, this seems to be one of the few defenses I can see that may help Schettino.

 

Does this make sense to any one else or am I way off base?

 

I remember seeing the "track" of Concordia or another ship , a few months before the tragedy that was very close to Concordia's fateful track. That ship may have missed the rocks by mere inches or feet and it appears no one rattled some captains cages about taking such a huge risk. Apparently no one realized how close they may have come to disaster. Or maybe Schettino saw that 'track' of the other ship, and thought "watch this, I can get closer than that"

[SomeBeach]

Max, I don't comment much any more either for about the same reason as you. I don't mind finding links and seeing where the conversations go. ;)

From my understanding the misunderstanding didn't make much difference because of where the ship was and the speed it was going.

I do believe for Schettino it is about more than just hitting the rock. There was a long delay in ordering people to their muster stations too. Those that did go there were being told to go back to their rooms. He was ignoring reports coming to him as to how serious the conditions were.

As to the other "sail by" that one was done with full knowledge of not only Costa but the Port Authorities. All the correct charts were on board and the ship was not going at the speed Schettino approached the island.

Schettino also reportedly had said he "planned to get closer" to the island than the other ship. I believe there was some grandstanding going on.

[SomeBeach]

This article gives the impression that a decision has been made.

http://www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/news/fpboating/10805618.Falmouth_firm_helps_raise_the_Costa_Concordia/

[Max49]

I agree completely SomeBeach, Schettino is an interesting piece of ego, psychologists may learn something from his type personality.

But from everything I have read, for what evr I know, that communication error may be the only thing I've heard that his attorneys may try to argue that, that may have been the difference between a disaster and a near miss. Even Schettino could say he knew 210* will put them on the rocks. I can't think of any defense at all for what he did and did not do after that. Maybe that could reduce his sentence to 19 years instead of 20. And , whoever promoted him to captain should at minimum be sent into a different industry or retirement. Or maybe put on a cargo ship going around the Horn of Africa.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Max49

[peterv]

i thought i read somewhere that the crime investigation would wrap up after the last victims were recovered. i figured some internal pics would have been leaked by now from workers on-board. what is there to hide? we all know what the outside looks like, but no interior pics or pics of the starboard side hull underwater??? sounds like they may be covering up how badly the parbuckling damaged the hull further.

 

I have been waiting and waiting, would really like to see what the areas that were underwater look like now, especially the spa, and the hallway where the cabins are caved in. Just curious it is actually crushed the corridor together as well.

[chengkp75]

I agree completely SomeBeach, Schettino is an interesting piece of ego, psychologists may learn something from his type personality.

But from everything I have read, for what evr I know, that communication error may be the only thing I've heard that his attorneys may try to argue that, that may have been the difference between a disaster and a near miss. Even Schettino could say he knew 210* will put them on the rocks. I can't think of any defense at all for what he did and did not do after that. Maybe that could reduce his sentence to 19 years instead of 20. And , whoever promoted him to captain should at minimum be sent into a different industry or retirement. Or maybe put on a cargo ship going around the Horn of Africa.

 

As the official report states, when Schettino is giving orders in headings, there are variations in rudder angle, to both sides, which is allowed to the helmsman when steering a heading. In hand steering, the helmsman generally moves the rudder 5* either way to keep course. If Schettino was worried about getting onto a set heading quickly, his orders should have been: "right ten" and then when the ship approaches 325*, "steady on 325". That would have put the rudder to right 10 immediately, and held it there until the ship was on the correct heading, and then have allowed the helmsman to move the rudder in both directions once the "steady up" command was given. This, however, requires the conning officer to pay attention to the helmsman, the ship's heading, and the rate of turn, which it appears Schettino was not prepared or inclined to do.

 

It is interesting to note that when Schettino gives the order to steer 325 but the helmsman hears 315, the vessel is only 0.5 miles from the coast, travelling at 16 knots. That 0.5 miles to the radar visible portion of the rock would be covered at that speed in 112 seconds, if the ship were headed directly at the rock. The second time the helmsman mishears the command, for 350*, and when Schettino makes the comment about ending on the rocks, is 3 minutes later, during which time Schettino has given 3 more heading orders, 330, 335, 340, and finally 350, which the helmsman has acknowledged correctly except the final 350, which he hears as 340. Because of these small incremental heading changes, the ship is still actually heading 327 at the time that Schettino orders 350. This is again due to the helmsman's leeway in steadying on a course, and the delay in the vessel actually turning after the rudder is moved. Only at this point, about 15 seconds later, when the ship is 0.3 miles from the radar visible portion of the rock, that Schettino starts to give rudder angle orders. And even then, he uses small increments of rudder, indicating that he does not feel any imminent danger.

 

Cruise ships in particular, tend to use the minimum amount of rudder angle to steer when at full speed, due to the tendency of the ships to list away from the turn, causing concern for the passengers. In fact, the hard left rudder order that Schettino claims to have ordered to swing the stern away from the rock, would have listed the ship to starboard, lifting the port bilge TOWARDS the rock at that speed.

 

I don't think any prosecutor would fail to find enough maritime experts and experienced Captains, let alone the ministry report, to sink Schettino's defense of poor steering causing the accident.

[Uniall]

Folks

 

The latest trial news has generated posts which, once again, raise the issue of alternative causative factors for Concordia disaster.

 

So, once more, I'd like to reaffirm the legal maxims that decide which causes result in finding of legal cuplability.

 

Western law follows the Aistotillian/Thomistic (Aistotle & Aquinas) models of various types of causes.

Culpability is affixed when an accused is responsible a for any of the efficient causes (an action that initiates change) creating the result.

 

A result can be created by multiple "efficient casues" working in concert. But, culpability of a person will be assigned if they provide one or more the the muliple effienceint casues the create the result.

 

Arguing there were other cause, not brought about by an accused, does not negate culpability, if the accused was responsible for one or more causes that helped create the result.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Uniall

[glojo]

Folks

 

The latest trial news has generated posts which, once again, raise the issue of alternative causative factors for Concordia disaster.

 

So, once more, I'd like to reaffirm the legal maxims that decide which causes result in finding of legal cuplability.

 

Western law follows the Aistotillian/Thomistic (Aistotle & Aquinas) models of various types of causes.

Culpability is affixed when an accused is responsible a for any of the efficient causes (an action that initiates change) creating the result.

 

A result can be created by multiple "efficient casues" working in concert. But, culpability of a person will be assigned if they provide one or more the the muliple effienceint casues the create the result.

 

Arguing there were other cause, not brought about by an accused, does not negate culpability, if the accused was responsible for one or more causes that helped create the result.

 

Hi Chengkp,

Thank you very much for clarifying the actual course orders as that part of my post was from memory hence my wording, when I said 'something like'

The conversation stuck in my mind but not the actual course and yes I totally accept what you say about delays in helm orders and ship’s movement. I have absolutely zero experience of azipod propulsion but as we know, Concordia had conventional propellers and rudders.

Just read the EXCELLENT post by Uniall and is the master being tried under civil, or criminal law and could you please explain if ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ will apply in an Italian court that is hearing this case?

Polite question

What you are telling us about applying ‘x’ amount of wheel makes sense as the ship will roll. Are stabilisers designed to assist in keeping a ship upright and is it the norm to deploy these things whenever the ship is at sea? I guess you have already figured out why I am asking this question?

When we apply ‘x’ amount of wheel, the natural thing is for the ship to respond by altering course and…. Heeling over as you have kindly described. If the stabilisers are working, what effect would this have and how much would that interfere with how quickly the ship would turn?

If the ship was going to carry out a number of manoeuvres, would it have been prudent for whoever had command or control of the ship to have ordered the stabilisers to be stowed away? (If they can indeed be stowed)

Changing the subject completely

When I asked about the deployment of the life-rafts, you very kindly took the time to give us a detailed account of the numerous ways these things do or can be released and you then went on to talk about the lanyard, and if I may I will quote you on this: The problem is that the inflating lanyard is only so long (it varies with how high the ship is where the rafts are stored), and once you get to the end of the lanyard, the weight of the raft will tug the lanyard hard enough to inflate the raft. This is probably what happened with the raft/s seen inflated on the ship's side.

My thoughts and again it is just me thinking aloud and also I must impress that I am in full agreement with your much appreciated input but…….

Those lanyards are indeed only so long and as we could all quite clearly see, that length MIGHT not be long enough? Could it be suggested that as ships have got bigger, with higher freeboards, the method of deployment, including those lanyards might not have kept pace with a ship’s design? If those lanyards had been longer, would the life-rafts have reached the water? If the lanyards were too long, then hopefully survivors could pull on them to recover their means of survival?

For those who have never had the ‘privilege’ of being at sea in one of these life-rafts, I will simply say ‘You should not be in any rush to try out that experience. They smell terribly, they are claustrophobic and it does not take long for someone to be sea-sick. For the sake of survivability the entrances will be sealed and that vomit will very quickly be ‘most unpleasant’ as more and more occupants are effected!!

[chengkp75]

Hi Chengkp,

Thank you very much for clarifying the actual course orders as that part of my post was from memory hence my wording, when I said 'something like'

 

The conversation stuck in my mind but not the actual course and yes I totally accept what you say about delays in helm orders and ship’s movement. I have absolutely zero experience of azipod propulsion but as we know, Concordia had conventional propellers and rudders.

 

Just read the EXCELLENT post by Uniall and is the master being tried under civil, or criminal law and could you please explain if ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ will apply in an Italian court that is hearing this case?

 

Polite question

What you are telling us about applying ‘x’ amount of wheel makes sense as the ship will roll. Are stabilisers designed to assist in keeping a ship upright and is it the norm to deploy these things whenever the ship is at sea? I guess you have already figured out why I am asking this question? The stabilizers are designed to reduce rolling, and they were deployed, as the port one was visible sticking up when the ship finally came to rest. They are usually deployed when at sea (unless the ship needs the little extra speed and the weather is good), and most are designed to retract when the ship speed is below 8-10 knots, as Captains have been known to have the bad habit of forgetting to retract them while docking, with attendant damage to the fin.

 

When we apply ‘x’ amount of wheel, the natural thing is for the ship to respond by altering course and…. Heeling over as you have kindly described. If the stabilisers are working, what effect would this have and how much would that interfere with how quickly the ship would turn? The stabilizers would have no effect on the turning time or radius. All ships have a "bridge card" posted on the bridge for the information of officers and pilots, that lists the distance travelled forward (advance), and the distance travelled to the side (traverse) the ship makes at full speed after the wheel is put "hard over". As an example, not having the Concordia's data, if a ship is moving at 16 knots, and the rudder is placed to full right (35*), depending on the hull design and tonnage, it might take 3/4 of a mile of advance (distance straight ahead) before the ship has turned 90*, and it may take 1/2 a mile of traverse (or the distance to one side of the original course line) before the ship is turned 180*. These are probably very generous (low figures) for a ship the size of the Concordia.

 

If the ship was going to carry out a number of manoeuvres, would it have been prudent for whoever had command or control of the ship to have ordered the stabilisers to be stowed away? (If they can indeed be stowed) They can be retracted manually, but they really don't have much effect on turning.

 

Changing the subject completely

When I asked about the deployment of the life-rafts, you very kindly took the time to give us a detailed account of the numerous ways these things do or can be released and you then went on to talk about the lanyard, and if I may I will quote you on this: The problem is that the inflating lanyard is only so long (it varies with how high the ship is where the rafts are stored), and once you get to the end of the lanyard, the weight of the raft will tug the lanyard hard enough to inflate the raft. This is probably what happened with the raft/s seen inflated on the ship's side.

 

My thoughts and again it is just me thinking aloud and also I must impress that I am in full agreement with your much appreciated input but…….

 

Those lanyards are indeed only so long and as we could all quite clearly see, that length MIGHT not be long enough? Could it be suggested that as ships have got bigger, with higher freeboards, the method of deployment, including those lanyards might not have kept pace with a ship’s design? If those lanyards had been longer, would the life-rafts have reached the water? If the lanyards were too long, then hopefully survivors could pull on them to recover their means of survival? As I've said, the lanyards (or painters) are sized in each raft depending on the size of the ship it is fitted to. I don't think anyone really thought of deploying a raft down the side of a ship laying on its side, when deciding on painter length. You also do not want the painter too long, as this will have the raft drift farther away from the ship before inflating, and this gets the raft away from the shelter of the ship. I have seen rafts that were torn off our drilling rig in the North Sea (no one in it), deploy, and then the entire canopy of the raft was ripped off by the wind. And again, don't forget the weak link. I have also seen where rafts were deployed, and the supposedly trained crew watch in despair as the weak link popped, and the raft, painter and all, drifts away into the sunset.

 

For those who have never had the ‘privilege’ of being at sea in one of these life-rafts, I will simply say ‘You should not be in any rush to try out that experience. They smell terribly, they are claustrophobic and it does not take long for someone to be sea-sick. For the sake of survivability the entrances will be sealed and that vomit will very quickly be ‘most unpleasant’ as more and more occupants are effected!!

 

As part of the training for working offshore Canada, we had to take a week long survival course, the "final exam" of which was to spend 4 hours in a liferaft at sea. This was to test our training in what to do to survive in the raft, and also to show how long 4 hours in a raft actually feels. It was Halifax, in March, and we were running 3-5 foot seas. That was the only time in my career that I was violently sea sick. For those who can remember the old type of waterbeds that were just a big bag of water, think of lying on this bed while 10 people jumped up and down on it. Needless to say, the cold from having been in the water (even in a "survival suit") did not help with the nausea.

[Uniall]

........

Just read the EXCELLENT post by Uniall and is the master being tried under civil, or criminal law and could you please explain if ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ will apply in an Italian court that is hearing this case?

 

 

Those western nations that follow the French Codal Law system (including Italy) do not make as big a distinction between Criminal and Civil law as fo the nations following the English Common Law. In Codal Law locales, the same act can be a breach of a civil law against an individual (victim) and the criminal law (state).

 

Similarly Codal nations do not make a big distinction between quantum of proof (i.e. perponderance of evidence VS beyond reasonalbe doubt). Also, Codal nations do not follow a double jeapordy rule.

[glojo]

Those western nations that follow the French Codal Law system (including Italy) do not make as big a distinction between Criminal and Civil law as fo the nations following the English Common Law. In Codal Law locales, the same act can be a breach of a civil law against an individual (victim) and the criminal law (state).

 

Similarly Codal nations do not make a big distinction between quantum of proof (i.e. perponderance of evidence VS beyond reasonalbe doubt). Also, Codal nations do not follow a double jeapordy rule.

Thank you very much :)

 

I feel our system is possibly far too weighted in favour of the accused as opposed to the victim. Great for lawyers though :o:o;)

[SomeBeach]

Sidari, I know you felt that "that woman" was forced by the judge to admit her relationship with the Schettino. I think that last few paragraphs of this article will show the judge gave her time to think about being smart and not lying under oath. As she, like Schettino, like to talk this was bound to come out and it did.

http://www.ybw.com/news/motorboats/535604/costa-concordia-captain-accused-of-abandoning-ship

[SomeBeach]

ChengKP, going a bit off topic here tho it does involve a ship.

Was just reading about this unfortunate situation.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/16/21496452-north-sea-storm-prevents-rescue-of-sailors-from-blazing-cargo-ship?lite

 

Hoping they can get the crew off soon.

[chengkp75]

ChengKP, going a bit off topic here tho it does involve a ship.

Was just reading about this unfortunate situation.

 

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/16/21496452-north-sea-storm-prevents-rescue-of-sailors-from-blazing-cargo-ship?lite

 

Hoping they can get the crew off soon.

 

Thanks for the link, SB.

 

Article brings up some questions in my mind. Fire is stated as being aft, yet the ship is continuing under its own power. Engine room is aft, so the fire must be in the RO/RO deck aft, but this is directly over the engine room. House is midships, so fire can't be too far from the quarters. A RO/RO carrying "military equipment" means its probably a vehicle fire, but I wonder why they can't get the fire out, as RO/RO vessels have special fire suppression systems for the vehicle decks. Interesting, I'll keep watching.

 

Biggest problem with air rescue in the North Sea is the shallow water and the high, short waves which makes vessel motion exaggerated. Trying to get 12 on a single helicopter would be quite a feat (probably using an old Sikorsky S-61 oilfield helicopter).

[bigeck]

Thanks for the link, SB.

 

Article brings up some questions in my mind. Fire is stated as being aft, yet the ship is continuing under its own power. Engine room is aft, so the fire must be in the RO/RO deck aft, but this is directly over the engine room. House is midships, so fire can't be too far from the quarters. A RO/RO carrying "military equipment" means its probably a vehicle fire, but I wonder why they can't get the fire out, as RO/RO vessels have special fire suppression systems for the vehicle decks. Interesting, I'll keep watching.

 

Biggest problem with air rescue in the North Sea is the shallow water and the high, short waves which makes vessel motion exaggerated. Trying to get 12 on a single helicopter would be quite a feat (probably using an old Sikorsky S-61 oilfield helicopter).

 

Strange, this appeared on Marine Traffics Fbook page last night.

 

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:3.60...167/zoom:6/mmsi:219825000

 

It seems to be going round in circles

[CTH]

Evening All,

 

Not viewed the webcams for a few days, the Pioneer accomodation vessel appears to have departed, according to VesselFinder it looks to be heading for the mainland?

 

Will be interesting to now see the full length of CC in the morning daylight from the webcam.

 

Does this mean the salvage teams are being reduced in numbers for the winter, & that the grouting is now complete as most of the grouting equipment was on Pioneer?

 

CTH

[SomeBeach]

Strange, this appeared on Marine Traffics Fbook page last night.

 

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:3.60...167/zoom:6/mmsi:219825000

 

It seems to be going round in circles

 

This update from about 6 hours ago says fire is out and ship was making it's way to Bergen. Probably in port now.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/11/17/fire-extinguished-on-cargo-ship-carrying-armored-vehicles-off-norway-all-32-on/

[SomeBeach]

Evening All,

 

Not viewed the webcams for a few days, the Pioneer accomodation vessel appears to have departed, according to VesselFinder it looks to be heading for the mainland?

 

Will be interesting to now see the full length of CC in the morning daylight from the webcam.

 

Does this mean the salvage teams are being reduced in numbers for the winter, & that the grouting is now complete as most of the grouting equipment was on Pioneer?

 

CTH

 

This was posted on 11/11:

 

http://www.theparbucklingproject.com/article/51/The_parbuckling_project_-_Press_note_%3Cbr_/%3E_%3Cbr_/%3E_%3Cbr_/%3E

[Bearded Engineer]

Evening All,

 

Not viewed the webcams for a few days, the Pioneer accomodation vessel appears to have departed, according to VesselFinder it looks to be heading for the mainland?

 

Will be interesting to now see the full length of CC in the morning daylight from the webcam.

 

Does this mean the salvage teams are being reduced in numbers for the winter, & that the grouting is now complete as most of the grouting equipment was on Pioneer?

 

CTH

 

I noticed this morning that Micoperi 30 has moved to the port of St Stefano and all the other support craft seem to have moved to sheltered locations. I wonder if they are expecting a big storm.

[cruiserfanfromct]

Not looking good for Schettino......

 

A radio operator on board the Costa Concordia has told a court how captain Francesco Schettino delayed calling rescue services after the luxury liner struck rocks.

 

Flavio Spadavecchia said he had "waited and waited" for Schettino to give the order so that he could alert coastguards of their situation but it never came, holding up the rescue operation.

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1170380/costa-concordia-captain-delayed-rescue-call

[bigeck]

I noticed this morning that Micoperi 30 has moved to the port of St Stefano and all the other support craft seem to have moved to sheltered locations. I wonder if they are expecting a big storm.

They must have been well warned

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24996292

[Bearded Engineer]

They must have been well warned

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24996292

 

When I checked out the Giglio web cams last night it looked like the waves were reaching the Bridge of the Concordia.

[Tonka's Skipper]

Hopefully she stays put!:eek:

 

AKK