Costa Concordia Disaster - What happened?

Professional Mariner Forum
724

You assume the hull is water tight. In this case (the CC) I seriously doubt the hulls water tight integrity even IF the gash is repaired while exposed.

You do not pump in air because the hull is already full of air. .

Incorrect. the CC hull is approximately 2/3s full of water. You pump in air to displace the water through the numerous cracks, broken pipes and fittings and hull breaches.

Attention: it there is oil on top of the water in the bilge, you pump this oily water to a special holding (slop) tank. .

Unneeded in this case. Any oil water interface will be deep in the tanks when they are de watered (by whatever method.)

If you want to remove water from, e.g. a ballast tank = deballast the ship, you evidently pump out the water of the tank. You do not pump air into the tank … as it will escape out of the air vents of the tank. .

That would be true on an UN damaged vessel. This is not what is being described at Giglio is it?

Air vents? When you pump out the water of the tank, the water is replaced by air via the air vent. If air cannot enter the tank while emptying it, the top of the tank may collapse (due to the vacuum pulling it down).

If you pump the water out of tanks that are holed you must either have HUGE pumps that pump a higher volume than is being replenished by the holes in the hull. Or you minimize the holes (via hard, soft patches. OR you make the upper half of the tank air tight and… use compressed air to blow the water out of the tank.
Air vents or PV valves are removable in any case to make them air tight to accomplish other tasks (like using air to displace water out of a holed hull)

Do you assume a conspiracy that by suggesting using compressed air is somehow a novel or untried technique?

725

I have seen a report quoting an unnamed Italian official. The official says that the salvage contract for Costa Concordia will be signed at the end of April and that the salvage work will start in mid-May. He gave no other details.

It sounds like it is taking longer than expected to get the salvage contract into place but I would guess that this is inevitable, given the sheer size and complexity of removing the wreck in one, complete piece.

726

[QUOTE=Burong;67237]I have seen a report quoting an unnamed Italian official. The official says that the salvage contract for Costa Concordia will be signed at the end of April and that the salvage work will start in mid-May. He gave no other details.

It sounds like it is taking longer than expected to get the salvage contract into place but I would guess that this is inevitable, given the sheer size and complexity of removing the wreck in one, complete piece.[/QUOTE]

If I were going to be “hands-on” on that project I personally wouldn’t want to start until the water was warmer and the weather better. I wouldn’t be in a rush to get started for that reason alone.

727

I’ve read a half-convincing description of the likely salvagae arrangements on Sky News. They are saying:

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.

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.

The wreck’s destination is irrelevant. The islanders merely want it removed from Giglio with the minimum of (hopefully no) environmental damage. Turning some of the sections into airtight compartments (but not the whole ship) sounds very sensible to me. That would just be a scaled up version of principles that have been used for hundreds of years.

According to Sky Niews:

Teams of engineers will work around the clock seven days a week for a year in an operation which is expected to start in May… The ship is currently lying at an angle of 80 degrees…

John Noble of the International Salvage Union is warning that the operation will be very difficult and he says it could also be “very dangerous.”

Everybody including Westminster Borskalis SMIT seems to be saying that “companies” will be involved rather than just one salvor. That sounds like the lawyers are working on a Joint Venture Agreement as well as a Salvage Contract, to get the proposals to join up from a legal point of view. If Sky are right about a huge workforce being needed, it would make sense to involve engineers and other technical experts from several different companies. Hopefully this would also keep the impetus going because they are bound to run into demoralising set-backs and so forth.

From a spectactor’s point of view, it sounds like the ship will not be righted and refloated until sometime in 2013, 18 months or so after the disaster. There is speculation that the cost will be around £200 million GBP. Seemingly it would be much cheaper to cut the ship into sections in situ but the Islanders and the Italian Authorities both vetoed this idea on the ground that the environmental risks would be too great. I wonder whether the Italian Government will emerge as the final Underwriter if anything goes wrong?

I am also wondering about the pontoons and giant cranes. Australian Pilot suggested that they might drive legs into the sea bed to hold everything in place. However, the ship’s keel is only 8ft away from the edge of an underwater “cliff,” where the depth suddenly plunges to around 100 metres.

Are there oil rigs etc that have legs in deeper water than this? Would driving legs into the sea bed cause a lot of environmental damage? Presumably the cranes would have to be positioned some distance away from the ship? I am also wondering whether it will be possible to tether the ship in some way, to prevent her from slipping, without causing substantial damage to the very sensitive marine environment in this area?

Being cynical, the people with the cheque book must be cursing the whole “marine environment notion,” I would guess. How much easier and cheaper it would be if they could just cut up the wreck in situ without having to worry about the marine environment or the sensitivities and sentimentality of the Green Lobbies!

728

Simplest way to refloat CC is evidently to seal the 45 meter gash in the hull below (now above) waterline watertight and then to upright CC (using pontoons?), so that the starboard edge of the bulkhead deck is above water. After that you only have to pump out the water in the hull and … voilà … CC will float again.:o:o:o

729

Gee, Heiwa, you need to get to Giglio ASAP and set those folks right! I hope you are writing to John Noble at the international Salvage Union to share your insights so he stops wasting time and money on silly plans.

730

Mikey, from looking at the pictures in the national media, it wasn’t like the ship hit an uncharted reef or rock offshore. They hit a freaking island! The latest scuttlebutt is they had a power failure. If you lose power you drop anchor’s. The whole thing is a mess and salvage companies are thrilled.

731

[QUOTE=Steamer;67280]Gee, Heiwa, you need to get to Giglio ASAP and set those folks right! I hope you are writing to John Noble at the international Salvage Union to share your insights so he stops wasting time and money on silly plans.[/QUOTE]
Well, let John Noble & Co try making superstructure, deck house and funnel airtight, so that they can blow air into the ship and force the water out through some opening in the hull and the [B]ship will float on the deckhouse[/B]. Like M/S Estonia did 1994. :p:cool: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/ultima.htm

732

it was the loch ness monster.

733

[QUOTE=Heiwa;67303]Well, let John Noble & Co try making superstructure, deck house and funnel airtight, so that they can blow air into the ship and force the water out through some opening in the hull and the [B]ship will float on the deckhouse[/B]. Like M/S Estonia did 1994. :p:cool: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/ultima.htm[/QUOTE]

Heiwa

It seems like what you suggest above is precisely what they do NOT plan to do?

According tto the rumours, there are no plans to try to make the whole of the ship airtight, just some of the compartments.

734

Although mine is an armchair quarterback estimation, they should only have to get 45% of the hull (on the Stbd side) air tight. Especially since the port side is easy to fix, and the. Rest of the port side is damage free. So that is ‘only’ about 25% of the total volume.

735

[QUOTE=cappy208;67399]Although mine is an armchair quarterback estimation, they should only have to get 45% of the hull (on the Stbd side) air tight. Especially since the port side is easy to fix, and the. Rest of the port side is damage free. So that is ‘only’ about 25% of the total volume.[/QUOTE]

?? How do you get 45% hull or anything air tight. On the starboard side! It is below water … and probably not damaged! And what do you do then? Pump air into it? The starboard side? I do not follow!

Isn’t it better to make the whole hull watertight again and pump out the water?

736

[QUOTE=Heiwa;67425]?? How do you get 45% hull or anything air tight. On the starboard side! It is below water … and probably not damaged! And what do you do then? Pump air into it? The starboard side? I do not follow!

Isn’t it better to make the whole hull watertight again and pump out the water?[/QUOTE]

Yours is the question of the century. Regarding the Stbd side: How does one make the hull water tight so water does not continue flowing in to replace water displaced by the pumps. The video of the stbd side hull where is has been resting on the rocks is fractured, ripped, dented (and if experience shows, starting to show hogging and sagging damage) the upper part of the hull is relatively damage free.

Regardless of which method is employed the ship must be righted enough to clear the top of the water tight subdivisions of the water. Once partially righted, The answer is one of two ways. Either 1. patch ALL the holes on the STBD side, then pump out when she is upright. The dilemma is the ship is resting ON the side with the holes. Or 2. The other method would employ making the upper decks water tight and then blowing the water out, with NO regard or care of how much damage is done to the bottom, sideshell. This is not rocket science, it has been done before (although not on this scale (that I know of).)

Welders CAN weld under water. the issue is prepping the open spaces back down to steel to have something to weld to. Not the entire starboard side needs to be made either air or water tight. about one half of it. I would guess there is still quite a lot of integrity between some compartments. Obviously not enough because of the damage from the grounding, but not insurmountable. Cofferdams would be another way to change the CCs water line. But it would appear the Italian Gov’t will not allow touching the surface of the seabed. Another way would be to attach cofferdams TO the CC hull, rising above the water to affect the same condition. read this

Recall the initial information that the ship was supposed to be able to float with any TWO water tight compartments flooded. Unfortunately 3 were punctured. This brought the CC to where she is. so conversely, only ONE compartment needs to be returned to water tight integrity. (Assuming another hasn’t been breached while sitting there.) Regardless, the ship must be brought upright (or more upright) to accomplish this. Maybe underwater divers can weld up horizontal cofferdams insitu to do this. We don’t know. The CC management and the salvors won’t publish this. So we will have to see!

737

A hundred years ago on the 30th day of July 1912, the British Wreck Commissioner’s Inquiry on the Loss of the RMS Titanic, held before the Right Honorable Lord Mersey recommended among others;

Watertight Subdivision:

  1. That the newly appointed Bulkhead Committee should enquire and report, among other matters, on the desirability and practicability of providing ships with;
    (a.) a double skin carried up above the waterline; or, as an alternative, with
    (b.) a longitudinal, vertical, watertight bulkhead on each side of the ship, extending as far forward and as far aft as convenient; or
    (c.) with a combination of (a.) and (b.). Any one of the three (a.), (b.) and (c.) to be in addition to watertight transverse bulkheads.

  2. That the Committee should also enquire and report as to the desirability and practicability of fitting ships with;
    (a.) a deck or decks at a convenient distance or distances above the waterline which shall be watertight throughout a part or the whole of the ship’s length; and should in this connection report upon
    (b.) the means by which the necessary openings in such deck or decks should be made watertight, whether by watertight doors or watertight trunks or by any other and what means.

  3. That the Committee should consider and report generally on the practicability of increasing the protection given by subdivision; the object being to secure that the ship shall remain afloat with the greatest practicable proportion of her length in free communication with the sea.

Manning the Boats and Boat Drills:

  1. That the men who are to man the boats should have more frequent drills than hitherto. That in all ships a boat drill, a fire drill and a watertight door drill should be held as soon as possible after leaving the original port of departure and at convenient intervals of not less than once a week during the voyage. Such drills to be recorded in the official log.

… a hundred years ago ! No rush, take your time … :confused:

738

Have a look at this french … Radio Canada video from 2:23 to 3:55. Interesting. :rolleyes:

http://www.radio-canada.ca/emissions/decouverte/2011-2012/Reportage.asp?idDoc=214622&autoPlay=##commenter

739

According to the Financial Times, the salvage award for Costa Concordia is expected to be finalised over this weekend and either announced during the weekend or sometime next week.

FT says that there are two final bids:

  1. Titan Salvage (American) & Micoperi (Italian)

or

  1. SMIT (Dutch) & Neri (Italian.)

Both bids are for joint ventures between the companies named in each case. Both bids involve refloating the ship and towing her away in one, complete piece.

The FT reports that “industry sources” are alleged to have said that they are expecting the Titan Salvage/Micoperi bid to emerge as the winner.

740

Vanity Fair have published a long (12,000 word) article on Costa Concordia:

The article makes for interesting reading and highlights the difficulty many passengers faced rescuing themselves from a ship on its side.

741

[I]The Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) says it has selected a 4-member panel of maritime and safety experts to provide an impartial assessment of the recommendations developed by the Cruise Industry Operational Safety Review, launched in January 2012 following the Costa Concordia cruise ship disaster.

The distinguished members of the Panel of Experts include Mark Rosenker, former Chairman of the United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), a retired Major General, United States Air Force Reserve, and former Director of the White House Military Office; Stephen Meyer, Admiral Royal Navy (retired), Former Commander of a number of Royal Navy ships, and former head of the United Kingdom Marine Accident Investigation Branch; Dr. Jack Spencer, former Director, Office of Marine Safety and United States National Transportation Safety Board; and Willem de Ruiter, former head of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA).[/I]

http://gcaptain.com/cruise-industry-appoints-panel/?44992

All these distinguished members of the Panel of Experts are whether former or retired experts. As well, I suppose that these experts possess a vast practical experience of command on board passenger vessels. So we can anticipate modern and up to date policies to review and improve safety measures. Implementation of more paper work, avoid unnecessary safety expenses to shipowners and the discomfort of the passengers should be part of these policies. :confused:

742

Titan Salvage and Micoperi have won the contract to remove the Costa Concordia. http://gcaptain.com/titan-salvage-italys-micoperi/

743

[I]The three new policies include:

  1. Passage Planning – Although cruise lines have followed IMO guidance on passage planning for many years, our policy now deems this to be a mandatory minimum requirement and enhanced by endorsement of the best practices contained in the International Chamber of Shipping’s Bridge Procedures Guide. Furthermore, under this policy each passage plan is to be thoroughly briefed to all bridge team members well in advance of its implementation and it is to be drafted by a designated officer and approved by the master.[/I]

That is a very good idea. I would never think of that myself. I thought wrongly that such passage planning did not even exist. Quite a discover. The only question remaining is if you have or if you divert from the intended passage plan, what do you do next ? I think that a 365 pages checklist tripled signed on each and every pages would be the solution. Or maybe, to call the office.

[I]2) Personnel Access To The Bridge – To minimize unnecessary disruptions and distractions on the bridge, we have adopted a policy that bridge access is to be limited to those with operational functions during any period of restricted manoeuvring or when increased vigilance is required.[/I]

I agree as well. The bridge team should only be constituted by the Captain, the Staff Captain, the Chief Officer, the Senior OOW, the Junior OOW, two Cadets, two Quartermasters, two Lookouts and the Cruise Director.

[I]3) Lifejackets – In addition to the statutory requirement of carriage of lifejackets for each person onboard, we have adopted a policy of carrying additional adult lifejackets onboard each cruise ship in excess of these legal requirements so that the number of additional adult lifejackets to be provided must not be less than the total number of persons berthed within the ship’s most populated main vertical fire zone. This ensures that the number of lifejackets carried is far in excess of the number of persons actually onboard the ship.[/I]

The lifejackets should be wear at all times except when you are taking a bath. Along with rough seas, it could become a hazard. No chance to take. All colors should be available to fit with the dress code of the night.

http://gcaptain.com/cruise-industry-adopts-safety/?45289