Costa Concordia Disaster - What happened?

Professional Mariner Forum
664

[QUOTE=AustralianPilot;65581]With Respect,

The CC was in a “hazardous” situation, being so close to the coast and as such should have had all her watertight doors closed unless someone needed to pass through them. This requires local operation with monitoring of closure on the bridge console display. The doors cannot be closed from the bridge as they are normally locked out by a “local control only” switch.

AP.[/QUOTE]

If the watertight doors cannot be closed from the bridge the vessel is … not seaworthy.

665

[QUOTE=AustralianPilot;65591]
Under normal conditions the bridge display console is switched to local control allowing local activation only of WT doors. This is to prevent crush injuries and non closure owing to unforseen blockages etc.

In an emergency only, the control can be switched to remote control allowing full closure from the bridge console. This can be overridden at the local station allowing potentially trapped individuals egress…the door automatically closes. Their have been some noted crush injuries on passenger ships.

AP.[/QUOTE]

Evidently all watertight doors, if open at sea for a reason permitted by SOLAS (and noted in log book), can always immediately be closed from the bridge. Safety is provided by audible (bell) and visual (light) alarms at the door, which are always activated when door is operated. If this procedure is not followed, the vessel is not operated correctly. If the door can be or is kept open locally and cannot be closed remotely from bridge or deck above, the ship is not seaworthy.

666

[QUOTE=AustralianPilot;65606]SOLAS has very prescriptive rules for WT doors for both pre and post 1992 passenger vessels. This prescribes construction, control, safety measures and operational guidelines.

The over-riding indication from these rules is that WT doors can be opened for allowing passage of crew and passengers although when the task is completed, the door must be immediately closed.

AP.[/QUOTE]

Actually SOLAS permits watertight doors to be open in passenger spaces at sea if, bla, bla. Reason is that many, several ferries in the Baltic have watertight doors in passenger accommodation which, if closed, makes movements of passengers very difficult. The ferries are evidently wrongly designed but, instead of fixing the defects, the administrations changed SOLAS to permit the defect. Evidently you cannot allow passengers to open/close watertight doors with associated noise from alarms, etc, as the doors should not be permitted in the first place.

667

This is straying from the CC. I do believe passenger decks on upper decks are a totally different animal when compared to main machinery space, for and aft and athwartships watertight integrity. The doors you speak of are ABOVE the main deck, and are different in function than these alleged WT doors between machinery spaces in the CC. I do find it crazy that (whether bridge or locally operated) that anyone in a position of authority could conceive that these doors could be operated with TONS of water cascading on them sideways, to cause them to jam while closing. Only Mr. Bjorkman’s repeated assertions that these doors MuST be closed while underway make sense. But I find it hard to believe that in these (non passenger) spaces were these doors even allowed, nevermind that they were normally left wide open! I would love to see one of these doors ‘proof tested’ under the conditions that when CC went through.

668

[QUOTE=cappy208;65685]This is straying from the CC. I do believe passenger decks on upper decks are a totally different animal when compared to main machinery space, for and aft and athwartships watertight integrity. The doors you speak of are ABOVE the main deck, and are different in function than these alleged WT doors between machinery spaces in the CC. I do find it crazy that (whether bridge or locally operated) that anyone in a position of authority could conceive that these doors could be operated with TONS of water cascading on them sideways, to cause them to jam while closing. Only Mr. Bjorkman’s repeated assertions that these doors MuST be closed while underway make sense. But I find it hard to believe that in these (non passenger) spaces were these doors even allowed, nevermind that they were normally left wide open! I would love to see one of these doors ‘proof tested’ under the conditions that when CC went through.[/QUOTE]

Yes…agreed on “straying” although I felt that Bjorkmans assertion that ALL WT doors must be closed at sea required clarification. We will leave the boulder statement to those more qualified…

The fact that the state of CC’s closure on the type A,B & C doors is not well defined, apart from evidence on the short video, puts a greater reliance on the enquiry findings from the VDR. If indeed the data recordings are available…

669

[QUOTE=cappy208;65685] The doors you speak of are ABOVE the main deck, and are different in function than these alleged WT doors between machinery spaces in the CC. [/QUOTE]
Watertight doors, that I describe, are only fitted in bulkheads below the main (bulkhead) deck in the hull … and shall be closed at sea … for obvious reasons. Above the main (bulkhead) deck, in the superstructure, doors need only be weathertight. It is a good idea to keep them closed too because if ship rolls/piches water may enter’ through them.
Re CC apart from VDR data the log book is of course also of interest of what happened. Three incident investigations have started in Italy (and one in France) and it will be interesting what they find and conclude.

670

[QUOTE=AustralianPilot;65606]
… The bottom line is that CC’s WT doors should have been closed whilst under a “hazardous” situation.

AP.[/QUOTE]

Are we sure the CC crew though they were in a “hazardous” situation? :rolleyes: :confused:

671

[QUOTE=cappy208;65685]I do find it crazy that (whether bridge or locally operated) that anyone in a position of authority could conceive that these doors could be operated with TONS of water cascading on them sideways, to cause them to jam while closing. I would love to see one of these doors ‘proof tested’ under the conditions that when CC went through.[/QUOTE]

Sliding or rolling watertight doors are tested to close against the pressure of one meter of water above the sill. They will close without jamming even in a movie style flooding scenario.

If you contact a W/T door manufacturer and ask, they might send you a video of a test.

672

[QUOTE=valvanuz;65762]Are we sure the CC crew though they were in a “hazardous” situation? :rolleyes: :confused:[/QUOTE]

The crew or the bridge team?

If there was any semblance of intelligent design, the bridge watertight door console should be interfaced with one of the numerous depth sounders/ENC outputs to alarm at a certain depth should any WT doors remain open…devolves another part of the human jigsaw! Think of it as similar to the ground proximity alarm fitted to aircraft.

AP.

673

Now we will see how many true “Old Timers” are on here!

On the old stick ships, how was the access between holds accomplished? Were there WT doors in subdivision bulkheads between holds?

What was the UN breakable rule concerning passage between said WT doors? When they were open what was the rule? When they were NOT being actively used what was the requirement?

How in Gods name, in today’s ‘more educated’ professional society were these ‘old fashioned’ rules ignored? And what rocket scientist modified them? People DIED because of this stupidity. (granted almost all survived) But to lose ONE person due to an unbelievable design/everyday use flaw is inexcusable.

674

Changing the subject slightly, I noticed a few days ago that five more bodies have been recovered from Costa Concordia. The BBC news article is here:

I read another article in which the newspaper said that a “robot” device had found the five bodies in a small area outside the ship, between the wreck and the seabed. How did they get there, I am wondering? Were they washed off the lifeboat deck or one of the other decks? Did they try to swim ashore but the idea went tragically wrong?

I guess we will never know and, like everyone else, my heart goes out to all the people who have lost loved ones in this tragedy. I think the only real consolation for the families is that at least they will have some measure of closure once all the bodies have been recovered and identified.

I think the next “big story” will be the salvage arrangements for the ship. I believe that Costa Cruises said that they will name the chosen salvors at the end of March 2012. When they do that, presumably they will also say exactly how the chosen salvors intend to remove the wreck.

I will be very interested to read what everyone on here says about the removal arrangements. I know nothing abour marine salvage, engineering and so forth but I suspect that whatever is proposed is likely to spark a storm of comment about whether the proposals are really feasible, what could go wrong during the removal operation and so forth. I will be very interested to read whatever the marine experts think about the proposed arrangements.

I do know that several of the potential salvage companies complained that they were asked to submit bids and proposals within such a short time that they were not really able to study all the details of the wreck and work out exactly how best to arrange the removal.

The people of Giglio Island are said to be particularly concerned about the salvage arrangements because they fear that it will damage the tourism on which they depend so heavily, normally. Personally, I doubt whether the islanders’ incomes will suffer. Presumably the salvors will have a large team of people who will be based on the island? Also, there are bound to be many “ghoulish tourists” who will want to go and watch the wreck being removed in whatever way is decided.

675

Have you seen any more pictures of the hull, specifically the stern and rudders, screws? Curious as to the condition and attitude of both.

It is unfortunate at the loss of life. It would seem that those under the hull either fell or jumped off prior to her laying over or as she was rolling. IIRC, there were reports that several people jumped over and tried to swim to Giglio. Reports that some made it. Obviously some didn’t.

676

[QUOTE=Burong;65851] I know nothing abour marine salvage, engineering and so forth but I suspect that whatever is proposed is likely to spark a storm of comment about whether the proposals are really feasible, what could go wrong during the removal operation and so forth. I will be very interested to read whatever the marine experts think about the proposed arrangements. [/QUOTE]It is very simple to raise the ship as it is resting on the shallow sea floor with most hull structural damages above water. Thus first repair temporarily the visible hull damages to make hull compartrments watertight and then upright the vessel on the sea floor so that the bulkhead deck comes above water … and then pump out the watertight, undamaged compartments one after the other. You only have to pump out 50 000 m3 of water and the ship floats!:o:o:rolleyes: Don’t forget to close any open watertight doors, though!:cool:

677

[QUOTE=Burong;65851]Changing the subject slightly, I noticed a few days ago that five more bodies have been recovered from Costa Concordia. The BBC news article is here:

I read another article in which the newspaper said that a “robot” device had found the five bodies in a small area outside the ship, between the wreck and the seabed. How did they get there, I am wondering? Were they washed off the lifeboat deck or one of the other decks? Did they try to swim ashore but the idea went tragically wrong?

I guess we will never know and, like everyone else, my heart goes out to all the people who have lost loved ones in this tragedy. I think the only real consolation for the families is that at least they will have some measure of closure once all the bodies have been recovered and identified.

I think the next “big story” will be the salvage arrangements for the ship. I believe that Costa Cruises said that they will name the chosen salvors at the end of March 2012. When they do that, presumably they will also say exactly how the chosen salvors intend to remove the wreck.

[B][I]I will be very interested to read what everyone on here says about the removal arrangements. I know nothing abour marine salvage, engineering and so forth but I suspect that whatever is proposed is likely to spark a storm of comment about whether the proposals are really feasible, what could go wrong during the removal operation and so forth. I will be very interested to read whatever the marine experts think about the proposed arrangements.[/I][/B]

I do know that several of the potential salvage companies complained that they were asked to submit bids and proposals within such a short time that they were not really able to study all the details of the wreck and work out exactly how best to arrange the removal.

The people of Giglio Island are said to be particularly concerned about the salvage arrangements because they fear that it will damage the tourism on which they depend so heavily, normally. Personally, I doubt whether the islanders’ incomes will suffer. Presumably the salvors will have a large team of people who will be based on the island? Also, there are bound to be many “ghoulish tourists” who will want to go and watch the wreck being removed in whatever way is decided.[/QUOTE]

Burong,

Yes I agree with your highlighted sentiments. Salvors seem to have an inate ability to regularly pull a rabbit out of the hat…only problem being, this is one hell of a big rabbit.

From a seafarer’s humble viewpoint there are numerous problems with this salvage;[ol]
[li]The CC is a very large vessel precariously held by a rock ledge which is allegedly moving.[/li][li]To seaward of this ledge is relatively deep water.[/li][li]The CC has incurred significant KNOWN damage to her watertight integrity which requires repair (assuming the intention is to re-float).[/li][li]The CC has incurred significant UNKNOWN damage to her watertight integrity which requires repair (assuming the intention is to re-float).[/li][li]I would assume that the initial actions will cater towards preventing any transverse movement towards the deeper water prior to adjusting buoyancy levels. Very tricky.[/li][/ol]I look forward to following the salvage. A subject which has always fascinated me. If they get this off in one piece, they are veritable magicians…nothing less.

AP

678

[QUOTE=Heiwa;65862]It is very simple to raise the ship as it is resting on the shallow sea floor with most hull structural damages above water. Thus first repair temporarily the visible hull damages to make hull compartrments watertight and then upright the vessel on the sea floor so that the bulkhead deck comes above water … and then pump out the watertight, undamaged compartments one after the other. You only have to pump out 50 000 m3 of water and the ship floats!:o:o:rolleyes: Don’t forget to close any open watertight doors, though!:cool:[/QUOTE]

Mmmmm. What about the boulder? Can one just put tingles over that?

Also, as far as I know, there is very little information about how much damage the stbd side of the hull has sustained. From what I have read, they are now using “robots” because it is too dangerous for human divers to try to search inside the lowest levels inside the ship or for human divers to try to discover exactly how much damage the stbd side of the ship has sustained.

So until they try to move the wreck in some way, will the salvors really be sure what they are dealing with?

I stress that I am NOT a marine expert. However I do think Australian Pilot is right about the idea that they want to prevent the ship from slipping into deep water and sinking. The stbd side is said to be resting between two rocks and it is not clear whether these two rocks are cracking or moving.

Also, the people looking after Marine Heritage sites are said to be complaining about the idea of strong-points being fitted to the underwater rocks or the rocks which are visible. That, I think, is one of these impossible situations where the Heritage people do have considerable legal powers but since their own concern is Marine Heritage only, one would be tempted to ask them, “Do you want this wreck removed or not? If you do want it removed then live with the fact that a certain amount of damage to the Marine Heritage site is probably inevitable but the Marine Heritage site will recover sooner or later. It won’t do so if the wreck remains where it is.”

Trying to thrash out solutions that will satisfy all the various parties is probably impossible, I suspect. (At any rate, the salvors will have done a brilliant job if they succeed in pleasing everyone involved, given the diverse interests of the relevant parties.)

679

[QUOTE=Heiwa;65337]Actually most cruise ships are pretty stiff with great GM due to damage stability limitations. It is nonsense talk that cruise ships normally heel >20° due to hard rudder action.

[/QUOTE]Don’t think this is right. A stiff ship is going to snap roll in a sea.Cruise ships would want a gentle, easy roll, that would be a low GM.
A tender ship will not roll as easily in a sea but would tend to heel over in a turn. A tender ship would have less damage stability then a stiff one. Cruise ships with a high freeboard would likely have a low 'GM for passenger comfort.

K.C.

680

During some very long and boring watches I discovered an old US Navy salvage and foundering manual. I recall one of the topics being the use of kedges (large anchors) being used to secure wrecks in place until removal was appropriate. Also use of multiple purchase block and tackle is rigged to slowly and methodically change a vessels attitude to right it so as to be able to be pumped out. Even huge ships like the CC can be manipulated this way. This is definitely a specialty of expertise, but it is doable. it just must be done with the local political approval.

681

I tried to check today about whether the salvage arrangements for Costa Concordia have been announced as originally promised. It sounds like the original plans have run into delays.

I found the beginning of an article on the Lloyds List website:

It is possible to sign up to Lloyds List for a free one week trial but I did that soon after the tragedy and the Lloyds List website refuses to let me have a second free week! So I cannot access the rest of the article. I think the full subscription is fairly expensive and since I am not involved with the shipping industry, I don’t wish to pay for news about Costa Concordia.

Another part of the Lloyds List website - with the link to the same article above - says that, “Capsized druiseship likely to be the most complex and expensive salvage to date.” I think most people already knew that!

The other day I read that they have now removed all the fuel from the ship

I suspect that, originally, Costa wanted to reassure the people of Giglio Island that they would not hang around for a year before doing anything about arranging for the wreck to be removed, meaning that it would be two or three years before Giglio Island returns to normal. Equally, I did wonder about some of the suggestions that Giglio’s ordinary tourism industry would only be disrupted for the remainder of 2012. That idea sounded a tad optimistic to me.

Equally, if I were the Mayor of Giglio, I would now be pushing for some definite plans and a definite time-scale. The wreck is becoming an eye-sore that he and his fellow islanders have to look at every day. It is too easy to ignore the islanders’ concerns when one is sitting in an office in Genoa or elsewhere. The islanders matter the most because this wreck should not be cluttering up their shoreline. In their shoes, I would put up with disruption for the remainder of 2012 but I would be very annoyed - and I would not simply put up a meek and passive response -if I heard that it will be sometime in 2013 or beyound before all trace of the wreck is finally removed.

682

I wouldn’t worry too much. The wreck is good PR for Isola del Giglio and plenty tourists will come to have a look at the attraction - the tourist one. So why remove it? And who is going to pay for the removal? Shipowner? Insurance? Tax payers? Maybe the best thing is to make it permanent and charge visitors to pay for a look! Of US/Italian stupid destruction of the cruise at sea buisiness!

683

CC will be salvaged! :o :o

“[I]The method used to refloat the 114,000 tonne Costa will involve sealing up the holes in the structure of the hull, as well as the huge gash and sealing off sections into airtight compartments[/I]. [B](Hm, the vessel weighs only 50 000 tons! :rolleyes: … and let’s make the compartments watertight, FGS!!:p)[/B]
[I]From there huge pontoons and cranes will be brought in, while pipelines are fixed to the Costa and air will be pumped into the compartments to give it buoyancy before it is straightened and then towed away to a dock, most likely its home port of Genoa where it was launched in 2006[/I]. [B](Hm, the ship was not built/launched at Genoa and it is better to pump out water than pump in air :rolleyes:… but anyway![/B]).”

So the show will go on and new mistakes will be done by new, young bright people!