Costa Concordia Disaster - What happened?

Professional Mariner Forum
842

[QUOTE=cappy208;94968]

Regarding your egg, I completely understand why it did not get approved in the USA. It is for the same reason you do not understand how the boulder got perched UP in the port side of the CC with no accompanying bottom damage. Side shell damage occurs in incidents too. [/QUOTE]

My Egg evidently was approved by the IMO according to Marpol I/14 and the USA had to denounce Marpol I to prevent egg tankers to enter US ports. They created their own rules instead, OPA90, Clean Water Act, etc. The innovation of the Egg was that it was based on correct collision damage statistics, e.g. that most damage is located/centered above waterline and none at the bilge, etc, etc. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/ce_collision.htm .

USCG thought that the whole side was sliced open from main deck to bilge in any collision incident which is far from reality. So by making the Egg collision protection 4 times better than double hull my concept without double bottom was approved. Also the risk of fires after collision (not considered by the IMO) killing seamen was reduced 75%.

As I say: Plenty of people on this forum do not know much about shipping and safety at sea and get upset when you tell them the simplest truths. I find it strange. You should be grateful, instead.

Re the merchant marine scum my father-in-law (b.1914) went to sea 1926 and stayed there until 1943 when he started to work in the port until he retired in 1981 or so and has told me about the drinking aboard and fucking ashore in ports and it didnā€™t sound very funny. FYI my wifes father didnā€™t drink alcohol at all. Imagine that.

843

If most damage is located / centered above waterline, how come ships keep sinking? I guess if you look at the CC laying on its side, then the damage is above the new waterline.

844

Bjorkman: Again. I said it about 500 posts ago: Your credibility on this (or any subject) is debatable because almost every post you preface your response with your WWW address. THIS IS NOT YOUR FREEBIE CHANCE TO GET AD TIME AMONG YOUR POTENTIAL CLIENTS.

Boy, does that feel good!

Stop bashing the organization(s) that is NOT responsible ( Costa, IMO). RINA is your Target. RINA approved the design. (I suspect all the classification societies do, but that is not germane). This vessel WAS built to class. What is NOT known is was the vessel OPERATED to class. If you want to launch your superior investigative intellect, do it where the problem lies. Class Design Approval.

Did the Crew (Shittino) FOLLOW regulations.

I suspect the W/T Doors WERE installed correctly. I also suspect ( as do most on here) that the doors were OPEN while underway. This would indicate Crew malfeasance.

You keep harping that the doors shouldnā€™t be there. Most definitelyā€¦ But, they are there! Quit bitching about coulda, woulda, shoulda. How were the doors operated during this (CC) event?

Nevermind your self promotion. Nevermind that you donā€™t understand the Masters Responsibility.
Nevermind your lack of understanding the GPS plot of the vectors prior to, during grounding, and subsequent drift and eventual beaching of the CC.
Nevermind your railing at Costa Management.

The original post for this whole thread is from Mikey. What does he ask for? ā€œA forum for thoughts on how this CC happenedā€.

So stop the conjecture. Find the facts. Stop playing the ā€˜corporate gameā€™ of foisting blame here and there.

You keep saying CC shouldnā€™t have been built like this. Fine. Let that be your NEXT crusade. (To change class, society W/T Door parameters.)

Right now either figure out THIS incident, the existing conditions, the existing circumstances or the existing operating deficiencies or sit back and wait for the investigation to plod through and whitewash everything.

845

[QUOTE=Heiwa;94994]As I say: Plenty of people on this forum do not know much about shipping and safety at sea and get upset when you tell them the simplest truths. I find it strange. You should be grateful, instead.[/QUOTE]

OH MY, THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE!..will somebody please go piss on this guys shoes for me?

846

[QUOTE=+A465B;94992]C captain, please pass your pointy stick over to Cappy.

Heā€™s pretty deadly with a keyboard there, and apparently we are not all the ignorant merchant seamen scum my mother felt we were.[/QUOTE]

I will be happy to but still feel that directly answering him only serves to keep him posting hereā€¦Mr. Bjorkman appears to enjoy being shotdown over and over again and wants to continue to post his nonsensical blatherings. I guess if he wonā€™t leave quietly then I guess is best that Cappy keep taking him apart.

847

[QUOTE=ElCapitan;94996]If most damage is located / centered above waterline, how come ships keep sinking? I guess if you look at the CC laying on its side, then the damage is above the new waterline.[/QUOTE]

A cargo/passenger ship being damaged only above waterline evidently does not sink and many of those incidents were ignored in the incident data base. An oil tanker damaged above waterline iwo a loaded cargo tank spills oil.

Ships only sinks if the hull is damaged below waterline and buoyancy is lost or if they are overloaded, say at the bow coming below water, and progressive flooding fills the hull from above and buoyancy is lost that way.

If you just overload a ship that it capsizes, it will always float upside down according Archimedes on compressed air inside the undamaged hull and buoyancy provided by submerged parts except ā€¦ the M/S Estonia that capsized 1994! Evidently that ship floated after capsize but ā€¦ the air inside the hull compressed itself or disappeared and the ship sank. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chalmers1.htm . But it has only happened once in history. It is one mystery of the seas that I am trying to solve.

848

[QUOTE=cappy208;95016]

This vessel WAS built to class. [/QUOTE]

Maybe, who knows, because Class rules do not concern itself with W/T doors?

The fact is that the vessel did not comply with the SOLAS rules about watertight doors as I explain on my web page. It is as simple as that. So the Italian maritime admin is at fault together with the shipowner, of course. Trying to blame the Master for incorrectly fitted W/T doors is not right.

849

[QUOTE=ā€œHeiwa;95024ā€]
Trying to blame the Master for incorrectly fitted W/T doors is not right.[/QUOTE]

Of course the installation is NOT the masters fault. But the operation, and crew negligence IS the Masters concern and fault. From all accounts Shittino would be able to ā€˜driveā€™ the library cart in jail. Nothing more.

Regarding Class. Class rules absolutely cover W/T doors. Class adopts by reference solas, imo and even other class acceptance all over the place. Thatā€™s silly to say class is not covering this!

850
  1. No grounding occurs, there is no problem. Masters direct responsibility for safe navigation and NOT GROUNDING!
  2. Watertight doors need to be closed per the stability letter and class. No way class didnā€™t require the doors. And if the doors were faulty it is the Masterā€™s responsibility to remedy the issue. His job not to sail on an unseaworthy vessel. It is also the masterā€™s responsibility to ensure the crew closed watertight doors per stability letter.

Soā€¦remind me again how this isnā€™t the masters fault?

851

[QUOTE=ā€œz-drive;95027ā€]

Soā€¦remind me again how this isnā€™t the masters fault?[/QUOTE]

This is what happens when a deckhand in the Queens Navie and a vivid imagination meet!

President Harry S Truman had a favorite saying:
ā€œThe Buck Stops Hereā€.

There was a man who understood responsibility!

It seems we have become such a nambypamby society people can make a living slinging Bullshit, and actually get others to believe it! The sad thing is, others are fooled into believing it out of sheer stupidity!

852

Have you ever taken a proper course in vessel stability. If a vessel capsizes its not guaranteed to float. It is easily subject to flooding. Itā€™s not a complete watertight can so during the process of tipping over air can escape and water can enter the compartments. Shifting cargo can complicate things even further. A good example would be tipping a canoe. It only has one large open compartment and it floods the second you overload or capsize it. Compartments are not usually watertight from above. The submerged parts can only provide so much buoyancy if anything flooded and air doesnā€™t simply disappear.

Edit: Apparently you do have your MS in Naval Architecture. That makes it even more your responsibility to use common sense when thinking of stability. I retract my first sentence above, but still like I said ships are not watertight cans.

853

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;95030]

A. Have you ever taken a proper course in vessel stability.

B. If a vessel capsizes its not guaranteed to float. It is easily subject to flooding.

C. Itā€™s not a complete watertight can so during the process of tipping over air can escape and water can enter the compartments.

D.Shifting cargo can complicate things even further. A good example would be tipping a canoe. It only has one large open compartment and it floods the second you overload or capsize it. Compartments are not usually watertight from above. The submerged parts can only provide so much buoyancy if anything flooded and air doesnā€™t simply disappear.

Edit: Apparently you do have your MS in Naval Architecture. That makes it even more your responsibility to use common sense when thinking of stability. I retract my first sentence above, but still like I said ships are not watertight cans.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for asking.

A. Yes, I know a lot about vessel stability. What about you?

B. If a vessel capsizes, i.e. turns upside down, it always floats upside down. Water cannot flow upwards into the capsized ship.

C. If the vessel hull is not watertight it cannot float or capsize ā€¦ it sinks before that.

D. Ships do not float on cargo because it is carried dry inside or on top of the ship and, if a ship capsizes, the cargo either drops off or ā€¦ when submerged and attached to the ship adds buoyancy.

May I ask you a question?

Have you ever been to sea? Or even been to school?

854

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;95030]ā€¦ ships are not watertight cans.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, shipsā€™ hulls are always watertight. Have you ever seen anybody building a ship hull that is not watertight? It will sink at once when launched into water. Have you ever been fishing on a boat? The boat must be watertight below waterline because if it isnā€™t you will sink.

Can you swim?

This forum is really full of crazy people. But it is fun. I always have a laugh!

855

[QUOTE=z-drive;95027]1. No grounding occurs, there is no problem. Masters direct responsibility for safe navigation and NOT GROUNDING!
2. Watertight doors need to be closed per the stability letter and class. No way class didnā€™t require the doors. And if the doors were faulty it is the Masterā€™s responsibility to remedy the issue. His job not to sail on an unseaworthy vessel. It is also the masterā€™s responsibility to ensure the crew closed watertight doors per stability letter.

Soā€¦remind me again how this isnā€™t the masters fault?[/QUOTE]

Waitingā€¦

856

you are certainly ringmaster of your very own clowncircus

But it is fun. I always have a laugh!

yes, laughing at you is most amusing for us peasants who have never been to maritime training or to sea, never become masters or chief engineers of ships and obviously know nothing when compared to your greatness!

857

This was made for the general public but I thought it was interesting.

858

This reminds me of this guy:

Bob Berenz had a good job as an electrician. But he wanted to do something bigger. He came up with an idea for an invention. But as he studied physics texts to see if his invention could work, he happened upon the biggest idea of his life: A revelation about physics that would disprove Einstein, and Newton

Act three Sucker Mc-squared.

The others are very funny as well. About people with a little bit of knowledge.

K.C.

859

I saw Captain Francesco Schettino at Burger King today ordering a fish sandwich.

860

You mean he wasnā€™t serving them?

861

[QUOTE=catherder;94954]Shittino strikes me as some kind of sociopath, given his comments one year later. He has no capacity for self-reflection other than blaming others and making excuses. One year later, 32 dead, big ship still sitting on the rocks, and he has ā€œno regrets.ā€
[/QUOTE]

I donā€™t know but it wouldnā€™t surprise me if Schettino was exhibiting normal behavior. Knowing that you are responsible for such a thing may be too much for anyone to handle and most people would likely be in some sort of denial or some kind of rationalization type behavior. The people that emerged as heroes in this incident were not the ones that were responsible for it in the first place.

I donā€™t think anyone would know for sure that they would have not have broken down in a similar situation, knowing that you had ripped open the hull of your ship.

Best bet is donā€™t take the test, double check your track-lines and give your self another 1/2 mile margin or so.

K.C.

As an example the SF Bay pilot Cota. He conned the ship into the bridge tower and immediately after striking it, turned to the captain and blamed him.