Could a Titanic type tragedy happen with modern cruise ships?

[hammybee]

......and I will say in that letter, "I will never sail HAL again!"

That'll teach 'em!

 

That should get you some OBC.

[jtl513]

And BTW.... I tend to resent those who think the muster drill is a big joke and so they show up late and act like idiots. They could cost someone their life in a REAL disaster.

It really does pay to take the muster drill on embarkation day serious for all of the maybe fifteen minutes it takes!

I think the photographer should not be allowed to run around telling everybody to smile/wave and turn it toward a "party" atmosphere.

 

Keep a small torch by your bedside to grab it if there is an evacuation.

This strikes me as funny, because on our side of the pond a "torch" is last thing any of us would want in a fire! :D (Yes, I know what you mean though.)

[debsjc]

 

This strikes me as funny, because on our side of the pond a "torch" is last thing any of us would want in a fire! :D (Yes, I know what you mean though.)

 

 

Whoops! It's that language barrier thing ;)

 

What would you guys say, a flashlight?

[Mary Ellen]

Whoops! It's that language barrier thing ;)

 

What would you guys say, a flashlight?

You've got it! Flashlight is the term we use.

 

Back to seriousness. We pay attention at lifeboat drill - no matter how many times we've been through it. Our first cruise was in September 1980, on the Prinsendam I. The passengers (& crew) on the next sailing 'disembarked' via the lifeboats. Since we arrived back in Vancouver after noon (we were late due to a storm), many of those passengers were already at the port. Since it was a month-long cruise across the Pacific, they were NOT young. It said a lot to us that HAL was able to safely evacuate them in an emergency. We know lifeboats ARE used in emergencies and they DO happen.

[Copper10-8]

I think the photographer should not be allowed to run around telling everybody to smile/wave and turn it toward a "party" atmosphere.

 

No argument there! I think it's stupid but the "powers to be" know it's a moneymaker so they're allowing it. I'm gonna start taking pics of the emergency briefing in airliners and sell 5x7's for $19.95 each - let me know if you want to buy some;)

What would you guys say, a flashlight?

 

We call it a baton;)

[Chivalrygirl]

We call it a baton;)

 

Then don't you come after me or I gonna torch your baton :p

 

Me in strange motel and very glad I brought along my torch :p Cause I kept waking up and it was very dark. and I was all :confused:

[bepsf]

LUSITANIA was torpedoed by an enemy government. Just as unlikely these days as TITANIC, I think.

 

More likely would be someone driving up alongside a berthed ship with a pickup truck full of explosives, or something like that.

 

Doug--

 

I know very well that she was torpedoed - my point being that it was a purposeful attack of the ship and those aboard her. Such an action whether by a government or a group of individuals is just as destructive.

Frankly, I don't think the pickup truck scenario would be nearly as effective - I mean the ship would certainly burn at the pier, but it would merely sink a few feet and the vast majority would be able to disembark somehow - even via lifeboats on the side opposite the pier if necessary - unlike at sea where the ship could simply roll onto her side in a matter of minutes with much greater loss of life (Which is the major point of terrorism, isn't it?)

 

I think it was actually Colonel Gaddafi who was supposed to have ordered that the action be called off, but I could be wrong.

 

Gaddafi was the one who wanted to put a hole in the side of QE2. If you know your political history you'll recall that he's not exactly a peacemaker, unlike Sadat.

 

I imagine QM2 would be the greatest target simply because she is the most famous.

 

Perhaps - but she's in the same size-class, isn't she? However the security around her is rather greater because of that, and there's only one of her - lots more of the RCCL ship/targets out there should something get delayed - lots more opportunities for someone who really wants to do harm...

[dougnewmanatsea]

Frankly, I don't think the pickup truck scenario would be nearly as effective - I mean the ship would certainly burn at the pier, but it would merely sink a few feet and the vast majority would be able to disembark somehow - even via lifeboats on the side opposite the pier if necessary - unlike at sea where the ship could simply roll onto her side in a matter of minutes with much greater loss of life (Which is the major point of terrorism, isn't it?)

The major point of terrorism is not necessarily loss of life, but generally to scare people. Of course, terrorists would like a lot of loss of life, but the objective generally is to, well, cause terror.

 

The pickup truck scenario would certainly not be as destructive, but I think a lot more likely as it would be much easier. Another example would be a USS COLE type attack with a small boat.

 

How many terrorist organizations do you know of that have submarines and torpedoes?

 

Gaddafi was the one who wanted to put a hole in the side of QE2. If you know your political history you'll recall that he's not exactly a peacemaker, unlike Sadat.

I didn't say it made sense, just that it's what I read.

 

I was surprised at the time I read it - that's why I remember it so well.

 

Perhaps - but she's in the same size-class, isn't she?

Very true, but IMHO the most important thing about terrorism is the psychological impact. That makes QM2 the most desirable target. Of course it does not mean that all other very large ships are not also desirable targets, just that they are not nearly as desirable as QM2.

[RevNeal]

The pickup truck scenario would certainly not be as destructive, but I think a lot more likely as it would be much easier. Another example would be a USS COLE type attack with a small boat.

 

How many terrorist organizations do you know of that have submarines and torpedoes?

 

All it takes is one terrorist organization (i.e., Al-Qaeda) with connections to one sufficiently equipped government (i.e., Pakistan) ... or with influence among that government's officials. The frightening thing is that this is precisely what we have.

 

Brian is right ... acts of inhumanity perpetrated by humans are a major concern. And, while the QM2 is the most desirable target, the ubiquity of RCCL tubs make for a terrifying (pun intended) ease of availability. And, put bluntly, sinking an RCCL ship would not garner less press than sinking the QM2.

 

And Doug is right ... ice pack, running into other ships, and onboard fires are also concerns. The idea of a modern ship hitting an iceberg like the Titanic did is almost out of the realm of possibility, but other catastrophic disasters are possible.

 

However, let me put the question differently. Is it possible that, in today's day-and-age, a big ship could go down with massive loss of it's passengers and crew? My guess is that it would take a catastrophically fast sinking on the order of a torpedo strike, terrorist attack, asteroid impact, or other such "Act of War or God" type event to do it.

 

Had the Titanic had sufficient life boats, today's evac procedures and modern communications gear, no one would have died. Can you think of an any more agreeable set of sea-conditions to have to evacuate a ship in than the calm, glassy waters they were experiencing that night? Yes, it was those very conditions that contributed to them not spotting the berg fast enough ... but ... once the deed was done, the ship and the sea was so calm and the ship sank so evenly -- and slowly -- that there would have been plenty of time to evacuate everyone given todays technology.

 

I wonder ... if a modern ship like the Maasdam, let us say, were to strike an ice berg just like the Titanic did (assume Radar and Sonar were down): (1) would she sink, and (2) how long would it take to get everyone off? Me thinks that the Titanic's bellow-waterline breach, if it occurred to the Maasdam, might not be as disastrous (or as immediately disastrous) as it was on the Titanic. Or ... am I just ignorant?

[above sea level cruiser]

All it takes is one terrorist organization (i.e., Al-Qaeda) with connections to one sufficiently equipped government (i.e., Pakistan) ... or with influence among that government's officials. The frightening thing is that this is precisely what we have.

 

Brian is right ... acts of inhumanity perpetrated by humans are a major concern. And, while the QM2 is the most desirable target, the ubiquity of RCCL tubs make for a terrifying (pun intended) ease of availability. And, put bluntly, sinking an RCCL ship would not garner less press than sinking the QM2.

 

And Doug is right ... ice pack, running into other ships, and onboard fires are also concerns. The idea of a modern ship hitting an iceberg like the Titanic did is almost out of the realm of possibility, but other catastrophic disasters are possible.

 

However, let me put the question differently. Is it possible that, in today's day-and-age, a big ship could go down with massive loss of it's passengers and crew? My guess is that it would take a catastrophically fast sinking on the order of a torpedo strike, terrorist attack, asteroid impact, or other such "Act of War or God" type event to do it.

 

Had the Titanic had sufficient life boats, today's evac procedures and modern communications gear, no one would have died. Can you think of an any more agreeable set of sea-conditions to have to evacuate a ship in than the calm, glassy waters they were experiencing that night? Yes, it was those very conditions that contributed to them not spotting the berg fast enough ... but ... once the deed was done, the ship and the sea was so calm and the ship sank so evenly -- and slowly -- that there would have been plenty of time to evacuate everyone given todays technology.

 

I wonder ... if a modern ship like the Maasdam, let us say, were to strike an ice berg just like the Titanic did (assume Radar and Sonar were down): (1) would she sink, and (2) how long would it take to get everyone off? Me thinks that the Titanic's bellow-waterline breach, if it occurred to the Maasdam, might not be as disastrous (or as immediately disastrous) as it was on the Titanic. Or ... am I just ignorant?

 

 

I have always heard that the Titanic sank as a result of the following:

Although it had watertight doors, these doors did not go all the way up to the underside of the deck. As the first "area" flooded with water, it subsequently reached the top of the so-called water tight doors and then began spilling over into the next compartment. Hence the sinking.

Since that incident, design changes have taken place and now these water tight compartments are just that: they hold water (in or out) and should an area of the hull be breached, the doors will contain the water within the specific compartment and not spill out/over and into the adjoining section(s) of the ship.

[RevNeal]

I have always heard that the Titanic sank as a result of the following:

Although it had watertight doors, these doors did not go all the way up to the underside of the deck. As the first "area" flooded with water, it subsequently reached the top of the so-called water tight doors and then began spilling over into the next compartment. Hence the sinking.

Since that incident, design changes have taken place and now these water tight compartments are just that: they hold water (in or out) and should an area of the hull be breached, the doors will contain the water within the specific compartment and not spill out/over and into the adjoining section(s) of the ship.

 

Captain Card would need to speak to this issue, however from what I've read and seen on various documentary reports, while sealing off the watertight bulkheads with watertight decks might well have have increased the survival time of the Titanic (she might have lasted longer on the surface -- perhaps long enough for the Carpathia to come along side and take off the remaining passengers), such would not have ensured the survival of the ship; the Titanic had far too much under the waterline damage, with 6 compartments flooding and only one (the 6th) capable of being pumped out at the rate the water came in. Even if the forward 5 damaged compartments themselves had remained watertight, the weight of the water in them would still have pulled the bow of the ship down to the point where decks above the watertight deck would have been below the waterline. The ship would then have flooded via the portholes and sunk anyway.

[Atomica]

Captain Card would need to speak to this issue, however from what I've read and seen on various documentary reports, while sealing off the watertight bulkheads with watertight decks might well have have increased the survival time of the Titanic (she might have lasted longer on the surface -- perhaps long enough for the Carpathia to come along side and take off the remaining passengers), such would not have ensured the survival of the ship; the Titanic had far too much under the waterline damage, with 6 compartments flooding and only one (the 6th) capable of being pumped out at the rate the water came in. Even if the forward 5 damaged compartments themselves had remained watertight, the weight of the water in them would still have pulled the bow of the ship down to the point where decks above the watertight deck would have been below the waterline. The ship would then have flooded via the portholes and sunk anyway.

 

Correct - Titanic could stay afloat with any four of her compartments flooded. Since five were flooding, the Titanic's fate was sealed. True, the watertight bulkheads only extended to E Deck. Had they gone all the way up to B or A deck, it's arguable that the Titanic might have stayed afloat longer, but the damage was done, and as Greg states, the additional weight of the water would have pulled the bow under to the point where it entered through portholes.

[gmcyd]

Since I have no intention of sailing to Anartica or even Alaska in the near future, I'm not gonna worry about the iceberg connection.

 

My real fear aboard a cruise ship is terrorism. I firmly believe that the next attack against the U.S. is not gonna be via an airplane, but rather involve a ship. What better target, from a terrorist's standpoint, than one of the large cruise ship terminals ... on a weekend ... when there are five or six ships doing a turnaround. A couple of truckloads of explosives and the loss of human life would be catastrophic. And, the ships wouldn't even be out to sea ... the disaster would play out right at the dock.

 

This is my big fear with cruising ... and I don't start to breathe easier until we have pulled safely away from the dock.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

Never thought about it in port, just the first night out, on a two day streach, about midnight, k boom!! Someone blows a massive whole in the hull. Miles from port, in the dead of night an LARGE liner goes down. THAT was my worry....but not for long. Can't dwell on it.

[lighthouse206]

As a former cruise director's staff member on 3 ships (NCL and HAL) i can tell you that it is absolutely possible for a "titanic-sized" disaster to happen on one of today's cruise ships. Now, by iceberg? Very unlikely.. but there are many other ways a ship could face disaster. Some of you might recall that the Norwegian Sky ran aground in the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1999... i was on that ship.. and it could have been much much worse.

 

The reality is that many of the worst scenarios involve the ship sinking (or even capsizing) so fast that the lifeboat's wouldn't matter much. There'd be no time to launch them...... Now is it likely? Of course not, the ships are very very very safe... but they are ships.... and as we all know, no ship is unsinkable...

[RevNeal]

... the ships are very very very safe... but they are ships.... and as we all know, no ship is unsinkable...

 

Unless it's sitting on land. :D

[u4ea]

I’ve seen scientists doing experiments regarding gas bubbles coming up from the ocean floor in efforts to understanding past maritime disasters. They deduced that enough gas bubbles could in essence sink a ship in the wrong place at the wrong time because the sea would become so “aerated” it could no longer hold the ship above the water. It was pretty interesting.

Mark…