A nice graphic concerning the Concodia salvage… http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/concordiasalvage1.jpg
[QUOTE=gavin737;61506]Sorry New3M don’t know how to cut & paste and quote yet!
What if a defect affects the seaworthiness of the vessel or something that would affect the validity of the ship’s safety certificate?[/QUOTE]
(Just hit “Reply with Quote” under the post)
Absolutely, if a problem affects the seaworthiness or another serious issue with a ship, it would be fixed promptly and the ship would not be able to sail until the problem was solved.
However, I can promise you that the VDR being non-functional is not one of those issues. A technician would be scheduled to come to the ship, and depending on the schedule, it could be several port calls before a technician catches up to the ship. And if it’s not in port long enough for the problem to get fixed, it gets pushed off to the next chance the tech can get back to the ship.
I understood we were dealing with more than one hole on both sides?
[B] From “The Wit and Wisdom of Winston Churchill” by James C. Humes:[/B][B]"Late in his life, Sir Winston took a cruise on an Italian ship. A
journalist from a New York newspaper approached the former prime minister
to ask him why he chose to travel on an Italian line when the Queen
Elizabeth under the British flag was available.[/B]
[B]Churchill gave the question his consideration and then gravely replied.[/B]
[B]‘There are three things I like about Italian ships. First, their cuisine,
which is unsurpassed. Second, their service, which is quite superb. And
then - in time of emergency - there is none of this nonsense about women
and children first.’[/B]
This incident really makes me question SOLAS regs.
[QUOTE=AHTS Master;61542]This incident really makes me question SOLAS regs.[/QUOTE]
That’s like questioning the speed limit because some knucklehead hit a school bus doing 90 mph.
[QUOTE=anchorman;61541][B] From “The Wit and Wisdom of Winston Churchill” by James C. Humes:[/B][B]"Late in his life, Sir Winston took a cruise on an Italian ship. A
journalist from a New York newspaper approached the former prime minister
to ask him why he chose to travel on an Italian line when the Queen
Elizabeth under the British flag was available.[/B]
[B]Churchill gave the question his consideration and then gravely replied.[/B]
[B]‘There are three things I like about Italian ships. First, their cuisine,
which is unsurpassed. Second, their service, which is quite superb. And
then - in time of emergency - there is none of this nonsense about women
and children first.’[/B][/QUOTE]
Oh my goodness …
THAT is so funny, thanks for my night cap chuckles, anchorman.
[QUOTE=rlanasa;61540]I understood we were dealing with more than one hole on both sides?[/QUOTE]
A republican debate, perhaps?
[QUOTE=AHTS Master;61542]This incident really makes me question SOLAS regs.[/QUOTE]
Why?
The hull lasted long enough to get 99% of all aboard off despite being driven into rocks at 16 knots, five flooded compartments, and no evacuation being called for over 40 minutes and only then after a mutiny. Not much better can be expected from a peacetime civilian hull design cheap enough to build.
STCW needs to add temperament and crisis response testing requirements to weed out people who belong in office jobs. Engineering solutions alone will not help.
The only cross section I’ve found of the Costa Concordia’s hull (http://www.cruiseplanet.co.jp/pdf/costaship/concordia.pdf) shows 16 watertight compartments. I’ve assigned the engine rooms to the two directly below the stack, about 250 feet from the stern. Numbered bow to stern: #1 Bow Bulb, #2 Bow Thrusters, #3(?), #4(?), #5(?), #6(?), #7(?), #8(?), #9 (control/electrical room?)(holed), #10 (forward engine room?)(holed), #11 (aft engine room?)(holed), #12 (motors?)(holed), #13 (shafts)(holed), #14 (shafts), #15 (stern thrusters), #16 (rudders).
The side view drawing shows several very low (1-2 deck) watertight bulkheads so I don’t particularly trust it, but better than nothing. Maybe some of you with large liner experience can clarify it some.
The hole shown in the photos on the port side of the ship extends from the ninth lifeboat of thirteen, aft to the large rock embedded in the hull under the last lifeboat. The ninth lifeboat is just forward of the middle stairwell. The thirteenth is directly above the 13th compartment, aft stairwell, and where the shafts enter the hull, about 160 feet forward of the stern. So five compartments were opened to the sea, as the engineer’s testimony indicated, including probably all of the main engineering spaces. The engineer said it was a “3 compartment” ship, so they knew immediately it would sink. The motors to the pumps would not start, which is not surprising since the generators and controls were mostly underwater. Still wondering about the starboard list. Did it start before or after the grounding?
[QUOTE=Mikey;60917]I’ve started this thread to gather thoughts and information about the Costa Concordia disaster. It’s still entirely to early to know exactly what happened but we know that the vessel capsized after hitting rocks on Friday night. We also know that the captain has been arrested and the incident has resulted in the loss of life. What we don’t know is why the vessel went off course. Was the captain or crew negligent in any way? Were SOLAS procedures followed and/or did they fail? Did the vessel lose electrical power?
Does anybody have any updates or possible scenarios to consider?[/QUOTE]
Thanks Mikey for your welcome message!
I got to your page through an article about the wreckage of Costa Concordia.
Thanks for your many articles about that: accurate and exhausting. Quite good the one highlighting the fact that a huge disaster can be caused by many mistakes/defects that may seem unimportant at first sight.
From my side I tried to contribute with this video-summary of the events as of Jan. 22nd, approximately. I hope that this video-summary may contribute to the stopping of future unnecessary loss of lives.
I would like to read here, or in one specific article, about your views on AIS and other maritime traffic monitoring systems, focused on the necessity to have them ON and ACTIVE 7/24, together with some expert’s eyes watching their monitors, 7/24, needless to say.
Cheers !
Giovanni
[QUOTE=Starbuck1;61553]The only cross section I’ve found of the Costa Concordia’s hull (http://www.cruiseplanet.co.jp/pdf/costaship/concordia.pdf) shows 16 watertight compartments. I’ve assigned the engine rooms to the two directly below the stack, about 250 feet from the stern. Numbered bow to stern: #1 Bow Bulb, #2 Bow Thrusters, #3(?), #4(?), #5(?), #6(?), #7(?), #8(?), #9 (control/electrical room?)(holed), #10 (forward engine room?)(holed), #11 (aft engine room?)(holed), #12 (motors?)(holed), #13 (shafts)(holed), #14 (shafts), #15 (stern thrusters), #16 (rudders).
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your informative post.
The following link may help visualize the engineering spaces of Costa Concordia. It specifically deals with Costa Victoria, an older ship.
"Diesel-electric Propulsion System for Cruise Liner “Costa Victoria”
http://www.sam-electronics.de/dateien/pad/broschueren/1.001.pdf
Another interesting link deals with a sister ship, the Carnival Splendor:
“Carnival Splendor perplexes engine room safety experts”
http://www.amem.at/pdf/AMEM_Communication_030_Carnival.pdf
Propulsion System:
The diesel-electric propulsion system of the Carnival Splendor consists of two banks (three in the forward and three in the aft engine room) of Wärtsilä 12V46C four stroke diesel engines each rated at 12.600 kW driving (2) converter type motors (2 x 42 MW) from Converteam (ex Alstom), France.
Thaks for this post.
"An once of wit is worth a pound of sorrow"
Cheers!
[QUOTE=gavin737;61506]Sorry New3M don’t know how to cut & paste and quote yet!
What if a defect affects the seaworthiness of the vessel or something that would affect the validity of the ship’s safety certificate?[/QUOTE]
Seaworthiness is a term that lawyers love to use, but it is often hard to exactly define. Often, a vessel can be considered “unseaworthy” if the wrong or uncorrected charts are onboard. When I was a Class surveyor, “seaworthy” was a word that we never uttered or wrote. The better terms that we would use were “fit for the intended purpose”, “considered satisfactory”, or the “class maintained”. The latter is one that I still use. Another duty that Class surveyors have taken on over the years are to act as the flag representative for the issuance and maintenance of SOLAS and MAROL certificates, at least for vessels other that US Flag. The Coast Guard, so far as I know, still serves that role for the SOLAS Safety Equipment Certificates. Class does issue Safety Construction Certificates and Load Line Certificates on behalf of the US.
Things that can keep a vessel from being “class maintained” are issues with steering gear, main engines, suitable electrical generating capacity, properly operating fire pumps and bilge pumps, emergency generators, watertight integrity (hatch covers, vent closures, watertight doors, etc.), structural integrity (side shell, bottom and deck plating, bulkhead plating, etc.), fire fighting equipment including suppression, annual inspection of extinguishers, fire hose integrity, vent closures, fire main piping (I have been on ships where my inspection hammer got stuck in rotten fire main piping), etc. Electronically, there is a SOLAS Radio Safety Certificate issued annually. For US Flag vessels, the certificate is issued by the FCC. For other flags, the Class surveyor will act on behalf of the authority, but the actual inspection will be carried out by an independent approved technician (Radio Holland is typical). Now I haven’t done any Class or SOLAS work in almost 15 years, and that was before there were things like VDRs placed on ships. I would imagine that they are part of the Safety Radio certificate inspection, but I could be mistaken. I would think that with the ISM that is now in place, there would be corrective actions to be taken when one is found to be out. That said, any ISM program is only as good as it is written.
wing ballast tanks! why have we not heard about wing tanks here? I do not have a copy of SOLAS here to refer to but I believe the ship was required to have them?
also, how strong was the wind blowing that evening? It obviously had to be from the NE but at what force?
.
[QUOTE=Observer;61550]STCW needs to add temperament and crisis response testing requirements to weed out people who belong in office jobs. Engineering solutions alone will not help.[/QUOTE]
I invite the Airline Pilots on this forum to respond as my memory about what I will post took place decades ago. Once upon a time I was issued an Honorable Discharge from the US Navy, and promptly took my FAA Commercial Written and Flight Test. Equipped with this certificate I gave some thought about the Air Lines as a career. Well, also at this time a new fandangle “test” was given to all air line candidates, this was not any run of the mill test rather is was a mental exam to see if pilot applicants would be fit for the air line industry. It was called the STANINE (spelling?) test, the word out about this new thingy was that it was first given to all the current Eastern Airline pilots, most of whom were former Army Air Corps fighter and bomber pilots and [B]most of them failed[/B]. I decided the sea life in the US Merchant Marine was for me so I returned back to where I belong and never looked back. I made the right choice.
Yea, I’m getting to the heart of my reply, namely I agree with Observer but I feel crafting such a screening exam seems problematic.
Perhaps these days it isn’t.
I joined this board to read up on the Concordia.
First post, so hello everyone 
[QUOTE=Starbuck1;61553] Still wondering about the starboard list. Did it start before or after the grounding?[/QUOTE]
My theory about the stbd. list …
-
In the minutes after banging into Isola del Giglio, the ship was losing way, travelling in a N’ly direction past the little port, and with a port list developing.
-
Now with the little port slowly dropping away astern, the Capt. had the urge to turn the ship so as to once again be approaching the port. A sensible decision, one assumes.
-
He conducted this manoeuvre by dropping the port anchor on the sea bed and then holding on to use it as a brake, so as to bring the the ship hard round to port in a 180 degree turn. I read one report that described this manoeuvre as “a handbrake turn”, quite apt really.
-
Once the turn was complete, he simply ordered the crew to release all the anchor cable out the locker, thus freeing the ship from the port anchor. All the cable went whistling out, landing on the sea bottom, see http://tinyurl.com/7s2r6vf , does this photo support this part of the theory?
-
During the abrupt manoeuvre to port that brought the vessel around to a 180 degree reverse heading, the sideways forces would be considerable, causing the vessel to heel quite sharply to stbd. … causing rushing waters to surge over to stbd., where they remained, thus establishing the stbd. list. (?)
-
Capt. never intended to land the ship on the undersea plateau where it came eventually to rest, I don’t think. The ship was drifting, all Capt. wanted to do was aim in the general direction of the nearest port.
-
Ship relatively gently ground to a halt on the underwater plateau, stbd. bilge in contact with the rock, more or less balanced in its 10 or 20 degree stbd. list attitude. As more water entered the vessel, now from holes on both sides of the hull, the ship leaned more and more, till she was all the way over on her stbd. side.
I don’t know, does this make sense?
[QUOTE=mikk0;61578]I don’t know, does this make sense?[/QUOTE]
Sure is something to chew-on, mikk0, good work, thanks for your input and interest.
Welcome
Sweat-n-Grease
Psychometric testing for new-hires has been around the aviation industry for a while now, and I have been subjected to a few of them. I’m from the UK and haven’t heard of the one you mention, but I reckon they’re all pretty much the same. Each company’s selection procedures vary slightly, but they all think theirs is the best and that they hire the best pilots! I know good guys who have failed my company’s tests but passed the next company’s; there seems to be no rhyme nor reason to it, and thus I’m highly sceptical of them. My company’s got some excellent guys, the majority being average and a few stragglers who bump along the bottom. It seems all airlines have the same sort of demographics, despite the psychobabble, and I wouldn’t mind betting the shipping industry’s no different.
Sounds like you’ve got the best of both worlds a career in shipping and a CPL as well 
In the picture if he had used the anchor
Wouldn’t it be dug into the ocean floor? Also I’m sure he had a stern anchor and another bow anchor he could have stopped the ship with maybe. Turning a 1000’ ship with an anchor on a dime like the AIS track shows seems unlikely to me in my opinion.