Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

Concordia News: Please Post Here

kingcruiser1

By kingcruiser1,
in Costa Cruises

 Share

Recommended Posts

Aplmac

Aplmac

Posted
Posted
The article says:

 

The ship was turned too late, that we know.

If the ship had been turned to port, the stern would not have hit the submerged rock, it's true

- and that's because the ship would then have hit the island almost head-on at 15 knots.

Which, I would argue, would be rather worse.

StarBoy was grand-standing, and at full speed!

 

We've all done this in our youth (us boys, not you girls..)

Schettino reckons he's still in his early 20s it would seem. Bet he's considerably more mature now.

 

 

What is it the girls say about us? ...that we never really grow up? :)

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Max49

Max49

Posted
Posted
The article says:

 

 

The ship was turned too late, that we know. If the ship had been turned to port, the stern would not have hit the submerged rock, it's true - and that's because the ship would then have hit the island almost head-on at 15 knots. Which, I would argue, would be rather worse.

 

VP

 

They say hindsight is 20-20 but turning to port, reverse engines to starboard would probably been much better but would not have impressed his audience with his daredevil skills. Yea I bet he grew up and aged alot since he had this very bad day.

I thought I read a couple of months ago that the hotel or restaurant manager who lived on Giglio, who the 'sail by' was partly for, told the captain, "be careful, you are very close to shore". Anyone else read this? Perhaps he wants to keep his job and has decided not to talk about it any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Uniall

Uniall

Posted
Posted
StarBoy was grand-standing, and at full speed!

 

We've all done this in our youth (us boys, not you girls..)

Schettino reckons he's still in his early 20s it would seem. Bet he's considerably more mature now.

 

 

What is it the girls say about us? ...that we never really grow up? :)

.

 

They say hindsight is 20-20 but turning to port, reverse engines to starboard would probably been much better but would not have impressed his audience with his daredevil skills. Yea I bet he grew up and aged alot since he had this very bad day.

I thought I read a couple of months ago that the hotel or restaurant manager who lived on Giglio, who the 'sail by' was partly for, told the captain, "be careful, you are very close to shore". Anyone else read this? Perhaps he wants to keep his job and has decided not to talk about it any more.

 

............ as I've said many times from the beginning on now defunct threads, his motive was to impress the "Domnica the Temptress" with his virility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vampire Parrot

Vampire Parrot

Posted
Posted
They say hindsight is 20-20 but turning to port, reverse engines to starboard would probably been much better but would not have impressed his audience with his daredevil skills.
From the AIS data that has been made available: he didn't start his sharp turn to port to avoid the island until he was less than 500 metres from the rock. Turning hard to port, no matter what he did with the engines, would have caused the ship to hit the island. Reversing the port engine would have produced an additional turning force to port, but it wouldn't have been enough to avoid hitting the island head-on.....

 

Some of the most fun you can have when driving a vessel is to simulate rudder failure by keeping it midships, and then steer just using differential engine power.

 

StarBoy was grand-standing, and at full speed!

 

We've all done this in our youth (us boys, not you girls..)

Schettino reckons he's still in his early 20s it would seem. Bet he's considerably more mature now.

 

What is it the girls say about us? ...that we never really grow up?

.

 

SOG (Speed over ground) when he made his turn was, according to the AIS information, 15.5 knots. Concordia-class ships have a service speed of 20 knots, so he wasn't quite going at full speed.... but he was going far too fast for where he was.

 

Boys never do grow up. The difference between a man and a boy is the size (and cost) of his toys!

 

VP

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enigm@

Enigm@

Posted
Posted
Does anyone know if the couple from the United States was ever found?

 

At this juncture, no, but my guess is they were among the five recently found.

 

This article http://www.asianage.com/mumbai/dna-test-confirms-russell-still-missing-cruise-ship-tragedy-759 indicates that Russell Rebello was not amongst them, so is therefore one of the two still missing.

Therefore one of the Heils at least must have been amongst the five, and as I feel they would have remained together if at all possible, I suspect they have now been found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mickey_d_mouse

mickey_d_mouse

Posted
Posted

I hope the other people are found as well, i still gives me shivers when I read it all, and the latest titantic bombardment on the TV hasnt helped. John & I and Katharine went out for dinner Friday the 13th of April, to ward off too much reflection, three months on we are still here and coping.

Very broke as Costa still have not made a reasonable offer to us that we felt we could accept. The last one was a bit more than the forst but still unreasonable. In the menatime Winter has hit and I have had to replace coats jeans boots, luggage cameras phones and numerous other items lost.

Having dinenr with some other survivors tommorw night :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SomeBeach

SomeBeach

Posted
Posted
I hope the other people are found as well, i still gives me shivers when I read it all, and the latest titantic bombardment on the TV hasnt helped. John & I and Katharine went out for dinner Friday the 13th of April, to ward off too much reflection, three months on we are still here and coping.

Very broke as Costa still have not made a reasonable offer to us that we felt we could accept. The last one was a bit more than the forst but still unreasonable. In the menatime Winter has hit and I have had to replace coats jeans boots, luggage cameras phones and numerous other items lost.

Having dinenr with some other survivors tommorw night :-)

 

Thought of you over the weekend. So glad you have checked in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tonka's Skipper

Tonka's Skipper

Posted
Posted
SB ... saw it a few weeks ago here in the UK, seems 100 years on and the cruise ship industry still have not had the penny drop! inner hull just like oil tankers.

 

 

Hey there Sidari, That is a interesting idea....double hull cruise ship...The double hull would have to extend somewhat higher then the present hull and you would have to be able to transfer ballast from port to stbd fast, but I would think doable..............It does however present a few problems.

 

1. Fewer Balconies.

 

2. No windows on decks with the double hull, except with a 2 to 4 meter tunnel(the width of the double bottom).

 

3. Less space..........fewer passingers.......higher prices.

 

 

Now that all said.......it would be interesting to see if a Naval architech(spl?) could comment?????....would it work????

 

 

AKK

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidari

sidari

Posted
Posted (edited)

Tonka .... The Double hull would go from the Double bottom upto the Waterline, there is no need for it to go any higher! White Star did try this with the Brittanic after the Titanic sank but failed to compartmentise it and after Brittanic hit a mine in the Kia channel water flooded in the whole length of the side of the ship!

 

By sealing off the Outer/Inner hull at every Bulkhead/ Watertight door there would be little chance of water traveling the length of the ship inside of the Outer/Inner hull plating.

 

As for if it would work? well it works on Oil Tankers! so why not cruise ships other than added cost of the inner Steel plating.

Edited by sidari
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tonka's Skipper

Tonka's Skipper

Posted
Posted (edited)
Tonka .... The Double hull would go from the Double bottom upto the Waterline, there is no need for it to go any higher! White Star did try this with the Brittanic after the Titanic sank but failed to compartmentise it and after Brittanic hit a mine in the Kia channel water flooded in the whole length of the side of the ship!

 

By sealing off the Outer/Inner hull at every Bulkhead/ Watertight door there would be little chance of water traveling the length of the ship inside of the Outer/Inner hull plating.

 

As for if it would work? well it works on Oil Tankers! so why not cruise ships other than added cost of the inner Steel plating.

 

 

Its not qiute that easy.the double hull would have to go higher then the waterline, likely near the height of the hull, as once the hull is brouched the vessel would settle deeper in the water.

 

Both the Brittainic and Olymipic were compartmentized like the Titanic, during biulding......the big change after the Titanic was that they raised the level of the transvere bulkheads, so more then 5 compartments could be flooded in a row and the rest of the vessel would not flood compartment by compartment like the Titanic....I didnt hear that they also double hull the sides of the ships...you very well maybe right on that.

 

On the Concordia the double hull would not have helped much as the *rock mountian* in her side also cut into the double bottom and right into the machenary spaces, exstending into the ship at least 15 feet or so and tearing out the structural members of the hull deeper yet. I am still waiting to hear the official investigation on just how the water travelled her hull of far and fast........she was compartmentized........I guess the question is when the Watertight doors where actually closed/sealed..Is there other damage?

 

 

It would take alot of the interior space was my point on fewer passingers, cabins, balconies.....I am not a ship designer thats why I asked if anyone had more background on just what it would take to double hull a cruise ship and still make it workable for cruising. Afterall......once the oil in in the tanks..you dont have it moving around the ship, eating and hanging out by the pools!!!.JOKING

 

It really is a interesting idea though!

 

AKK

Edited by Tonka's Skipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidari

sidari

Posted
Posted

Tonka .... The space required would be minimal for the inner hull and would be about 18 inches or so, maybe 2 feet, not a lot i agree but there is always a chance that it would help.

 

It has always been believed that ships would be holed from underneath and hence the Double Bottom but no thought was given to a Double side up to the waterline!

 

My understanding is that cruise ships are supposed to travel with watertight doors closed while at sea, but if the videos of the Bridge on Concordia are to be believed they were closed after the collision! another fatal mistake which would have allowed the water to flow anywhere.

 

I have a book that has all 3 white Star ships Olympic, Titanic and Brittanic in it and there are pics of the Inner hull being put in place on the Brittanic, i will see if i can copy it and post it for you.

 

I often wonder whether Titanic would have stayed afloat had they managed the incoming water to a point where they manually operated/opened the Watertight doors as they could just high enough to allow the water to flood to a constant level throughout the ship! keeping it even from Bow to Stern, ok so it would be very low in the water but it may have remained afloat possibly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BlackHawk1

BlackHawk1

Posted
Posted
Tonka .... The space required would be minimal for the inner hull and would be about 18 inches or so, maybe 2 feet, not a lot i agree but there is always a chance that it would help.

 

Sidari, I don't know if you have ever worked on a ship in a confined space, but when you have a void space on a ship, there are occasions when it has to be accessed. There are many reasons such as repair, cleaning, painting, initial assembly (welding) etc. Do you really think that one will be able to get around in an 18" - 2' deep space?

Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidari

sidari

Posted
Posted

Blackhawk .... No i have not worked on a ship in a confined space but i have trained for 30 years going through confined spaces of less than 2 feet and down sewer shafts with and without Breathing apparatus on, and on many occasions having to rescue a 14 stone training body.

 

So in that respect those spaces to me on a ship would be no different, inspection hatches can still be used with no need for someone to go into the space ... never heard of camera inspections?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tonka's Skipper

Tonka's Skipper

Posted
Posted
Tonka .... The space required would be minimal for the inner hull and would be about 18 inches or so, maybe 2 feet, not a lot i agree but there is always a chance that it would help.

 

It has always been believed that ships would be holed from underneath and hence the Double Bottom but no thought was given to a Double side up to the waterline!

 

My understanding is that cruise ships are supposed to travel with watertight doors closed while at sea, but if the videos of the Bridge on Concordia are to be believed they were closed after the collision! another fatal mistake which would have allowed the water to flow anywhere.

 

I have a book that has all 3 white Star ships Olympic, Titanic and Brittanic in it and there are pics of the Inner hull being put in place on the Brittanic, i will see if i can copy it and post it for you.

 

I often wonder whether Titanic would have stayed afloat had they managed the incoming water to a point where they manually operated/opened the Watertight doors as they could just high enough to allow the water to flood to a constant level throughout the ship! keeping it even from Bow to Stern, ok so it would be very low in the water but it may have remained afloat possibly.

 

Morning!

 

No need to prove the White Star Double hull sections,,,,,your word is fine.

 

But I disagree.18" in a double bottom around the sides would be of little good.........any brouching of the hull sides would more then likely go in deeper, reqiuring a much wider tank........easily 2 meters or so.

 

As to the watertight fdoors being close.I must admit I do not know of any rule reqiuring the doors to be closed at sea. I do know that with the watertight doors closed,it makes geting around the lower decks of the ship alot harder always opening and closing the doors.

 

The idea of letting the water spread along the lenght of the Titanic, would not keep her from sinking.........However it may have kept her afloat longer...........maybe even time to better fill the lifeboats and let the Carpathia to get to her!

 

I do beleive there will be alot more IMO reports and changes to the rules coming down the road!

 

 

AKK

 

AKK

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Cruise Critic News & Features
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...