Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[DavieTait]

John S asked about Sonar and was shot down - but yes all ships have Sonar  its called  echo or depth sounders and there are hundreds on the market that are forward
looking echo sounders - I had one on my boat - cost about £1000 but now cheaper - looked about 200 metres ahead ( quite sufficient for a 7 knot sailing yacht
ALL echo sounders have a depth (minimum and maximum depths) which are set to the operators requirements.
A ship like this would have had more than one and it would probably the best on the market costing thousands.
The mediterranean is interesting in places - off the Greek Islands in places you can be 25 yards from the shore and be in hundreds of feet of water -
as most of the small islands off Italy are of volcanic origin the bottom will rise very quickly in places so action would have to be taken instantly if the shallow water
alarm sounded.
Either the alarm was not set or action was not taken in time

Geoff

Sorry Geoff but the information John got was hardly being shot down , as for a sailing boat at 7 knots well a sonar will work all the time but on any ship doing more than 12 to 14 knots there is a lot of aerated water ( basically when the bow cuts through the sea it causes a lot of bubbles to go into the sea  ) that flow under the hull , this seriously degrades sonar to the point at about 16 knots that its basically not worth having it on as the sonar will not give accurate readings if it gives any readings at all.

The big pelagic trawlers have 360 degree sonars with a range of over 1nm that cost around half a million upwards each and they have to slow down from their steaming speed of 18 knots to less than 12 knots so they can use them and those sonars are far far better than the ones ever fitted to cruise ships

[Bryan Young]

Sometimes a Newspaper article gets it about right. Not often, but "sometimes".
A rather thoughtful article about the grounding etc. of this ship and the angle at which she came to rest kind of hit the nail on its head.
I know that inflatables (and launching davits) have been around for many years now......originally designed as a secondary means of survival, and so fitted with hydrostatic release gear that would allow the rafts to self-release from a submerging ship and bob up to the surface fully inflated. A good idea then and now. I also know that a more "aircraft" system is being used on some ships....that is, the use of "slides". Good.
But many ships still utilise boats and davits. Any seafarer will agree that using davit launched boats has limitations. Particularly when the sinking ship develops a list. The age old remedy for this was to fit "bowsing in" tackles that, as the name suggests, hold the boat in to the ships side to ease embarkation. In this case the bowsing in tackles don't appear to have been used...perhaps not even fitted (although I doubt if that is the case here).
The nub of this is to realise that attempting to evacuate a ship with 6,000 people on board using technology (although updated) ithat is now over 100 years old is an impossibility. My recollection of the rules stated that any ship should carry sufficient lifeboats on each side of the ship to accommodate all people on board. 6,000 people? I think not. The ship would look like nothing on earth. So my thinking is that the embryo "slide" method be made mandatory, and lifeboats as we know them be consigned to history.BY.

[davidsg1a]

As Brian says the slide option (MES) should be mandatory, i work for Calmac Ferries and all of our ships have the MES system onboard, the older ships have MES and life boats but the new ships dont have life boats, they use MES and have two FRC'S the MES is good on aspect that you deploy the system with a greater list than you can a life boat, these FRC's are launched as soon as the Abondon ship order is given and are in the water while the MES is deployd, Iv done an MES deployment with 40 people and the speed we had every one in the raft and away alot quicker than we could of had the life boat loaded and away.

I hope I never have to abandon ship with passengers, the biggest  ship we have can take 1050 pax and only a crew of 32, that would not bare thinking about how quick we could everyone off and panic.

The MCA requirements for our classes of ships are 1 crew for 75  pax.

David

[carlmt]

I think that you will find that all modern cross-channel ferries are fitted with the MES system now - I know the 3 DFDS Dunkerque boats only have 2 'lifeboats' each plus 2 fast rescue craft, but numerous inflatables.........

If I remember correctly, the 3 'Spirit' class vessels of Townsend Thoresen were one of the first ships on the UK register to have this system, although it was retro-fitted after their entry into service.
C

[john s 2]

As a layman how are the inflatables used ? Are they inflated then launched? If so , how? how do the passengers get on? and when? As said before im learning all the time John

[nhp651]

They have a painter (thin rope) attached to a fixed point either on the cradle or rail, etc, which on the other end is linked to a charge which when tugged or pulled sets the charge off which then opens a valve on a compressed air bottle which then inflates the raft......all automatic.. and as the raft inflates, it splits the thin seal between the two canister halves to reveal an inflating raft......and if the release straps are used on the cradle, in extreme circumstances, as the ship goes down, the canistwer containing the raft floats off, and tugs the painter itself, which then opens up the raft.takes about 15 - 20 seconds to inflate.
I used to help a certified tester for surveys during my uni holidays at Cosalt, Fleetwood.......and it was great fun doing them, and then driving them off to different ports to catch up with a coster or trawler or what ever that had sailed and left the things behind for testing.
I think under most circumstances the raft is launched, and then the people make for it in the water

neil.

[Shipmate60]

John,
The MES System is similar to those used on aircraft.
Am enclosed slide with internal "speed bumps" to slow down the descent.
At the bottom is a large inflatable platform which the inflated liferafts tie up to.
So initial loading per MES id 180 people. 3 x 60 man liferafts.
Once full others can tie up to the platform and load up.
The Wightlink Ferries to the Isle of Wight have this system on all the car ferries.

Bob

[DavieTait]

Hopefully MES will become mandatory and we can see the end of Titanic era style lifeboats , lets face facts these "cruise" ships could make a lot more money with cabins instead of lifeboats although we should remember that all of these boats are powered and are used during the itinerary to transport the passengers ashore and back to the ship on a great many cruise destinations ( take Orkney the big boats have to anchor in the bay and use these lifeboats to transfer passengers )

so they're use for transporting passengers is still needed but we should insist on the MES + inflatable raft system for emergency evacuation of this class of ship

[john s 2]

Thanks lads for explaining things are clearer now. My thoughts are now about getting the passengers onboard.Surely expecting people to enter the water to swim to the inflatables is asking too much of a lot of passengers and this is assuming the water is not cold enough to kill. I understand that one passenger died of exposure in the disarster we are talking about. How in rough seas can inflatables be moved at all so passengers can embark?. Once again the idea is good, but in practise? To me it seems that lifeboats and not only inflatables are required. Thanks John.

[dodgy geezer]

It does rather look like that but reports are suggesting that the ship initially hit a 'sandbank' and was subsequently steered to its present position which certainly does seem to be on the rocks. maybe it went aground twice? But usually if you hit a sandbank the damage is relatively minimal and more embarrasing than dangerous.

Looking at the Marine Traffic Map  http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?oldmmsi=247158500&zoom=14&olddate=1/13/2012%209:02:00%20PM , it seems as if she approached Giglio from the southwest, with the island on her port side. She must have got too close to the shore, hit a rock, and then stood off land, pulling away to the north. The captain decided to beach her rather than sink a mile or so offshore, did a 360 to starboard, and headed for Giglio harbour. If it had been a sandy or flat bottom, the ship would probably not have rolled as much as she did....

It looks like a reasonable decision, though it didn't work that well. The obvious mystery is why she hit the island in the first place. My best guess as to what she hit is: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=42.355860,10.930000&hl=en&ll=42.356562,10.930002&spn=0.010846,0.018733&sll=42.355658,10.930002&sspn=0.010846,0.018733&vpsrc=0&t=h&z=16&iwloc=A  but it should be easy enough to trace the rock embedded in her hull....

[Colin Bishop]

Still a very big question as to why she didn't settle upright as designed unless it was due to being perched on a sloping seabed. If it turns out that she was inherently unstable then it poses very serious questions for most other modern cruise ships.

Colin

[dodgy geezer]

I think it must be the seabed shape. There's probably a number of other holes in her now...

In other news, this could be an explanation of why she bounced off the first rock. Hat tip to Euro Referendum...

http://www.emirates247.com/news/world/costa-showboating-may-have-caused-disaster-2012-01-15-1.437735     

[RaaArtyGunner]

Can't guarantee the accuracy but it has been reported in the Brisbane press (1800 Brisbane time) that the captain was showing off to someone on shore at the time of the incident which may explain why she was off course and close to the "reef".

[Bryan Young]

Looking at the Marine Traffic Map  http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?oldmmsi=247158500&zoom=14&olddate=1/13/2012%209:02:00%20PM , it seems as if she approached Giglio from the southwest, with the island on her port side. She must have got too close to the shore, hit a rock, and then stood off land, pulling away to the north. The captain decided to beach her rather than sink a mile or so offshore, did a 360 to starboard, and headed for Giglio harbour. If it had been a sandy or flat bottom, the ship would probably not have rolled as much as she did....

It looks like a reasonable decision, though it didn't work that well. The obvious mystery is why she hit the island in the first place. My best guess as to what she hit is: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=42.355860,10.930000&hl=en&ll=42.356562,10.930002&spn=0.010846,0.018733&sll=42.355658,10.930002&sspn=0.010846,0.018733&vpsrc=0&t=h&z=16&iwloc=A  but it should be easy enough to trace the rock embedded in her hull....

Did a 360? Surely not? BY.

[dodgy geezer]

Yup. The 'Emirate Times' (!!) was reporting an assertion of 'showboating' piece in 'La Stampa' some hours before...

The showboating theory seems to make sense. She approached Giglio from the southwest to do a close pass on the town. She got too close to the shore, hit the rock at http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=42.355860,10.930000&hl=en&ll=42.356562,10.930002&spn=0.010846,0.018733&sll=42.355658,10.930002&sspn=0.010846,0.018733&vpsrc=0&t=h&z=16&iwloc=A and then stood off, swung round and headed for Giglio harbour. BY is right - that would be a 180...  

This suggests there is no issue about stability - the boat simply rolled when it touched the sloping seabed. And no need to call for better sonar - the ship was intentionally driven into danger. It would also explain the reported confusion - the passengers would have been brought up on deck for a lifeboat evacuation, and then the lifeboat launch would then have been delayed because the ship was making a quick dash for the shore.

From the position of the hole, I suspect she went about 30ft from the rock, just avoided it with her stabilisers, but hit it as she swung away. Perhaps there was an argument on the bridge, and someone used her bow thrusters, which would tend to swing her stern in....  

[pugwash]

Now lets not confuse the non-sailing fraternity on here - surely she was on a northwesterly course and approached Giglio from the southEAST not the south west
or is there something I'm missing.  Just looks like she made the alteration of course to north a bit too late.

Geoff

[davidsg1a]

Bryan's theory about the captains decision to beach her is what most ships would do in that situation, it is tuff luck that ship that didnt beach on a flat bed, you can see on google map that the entrance to harbour looks soft and flat, there was reports of electrical problems which could mean that see lost propultion and quite had it to the harbour.

Dodgy geezer brings up the point of maybe the bow thruster was used, has far as i can tell the stabiliser fins are retractable, on the ships i work on we have retractable fins and when the fins are out the bow thruster wont start, as far as I know its the same on all ships with retractable fins.

David

[dodgy geezer]

Bryan's theory about the captains decision to beach her...

I thought that was me? Though it's hardly a ground-breaking deduction, and I'm happy to be corrected  

Dodgy geezer brings up the point of maybe the bow thruster was used, has far as i can tell the stabiliser fins are retractable, on the ships i work on we have retractable fins and when the fins are out the bow thruster wont start, as far as I know its the same on all ships with retractable fins.
David

That's interesting information that I did not know. But if they were retractable I would be surprised if they were kept out while the ship was attempting a pass close to a rocky shore! They might have been put out later as the ship started to roll, in an effort to keep her upright...

Now lets not confuse the non-sailing fraternity on here - surely she was on a northwesterly course and approached Giglio from the southEAST not the south west
or is there something I'm missing.  Just looks like she made the alteration of course to north a bit too late.

Quite correct - I'm afraid I don't know my East from my elbow, and my navigational skills approximate to those of Sub Lieutenant Phillips of 'The Navy Lark'...

[The long Build]

Looks like the Company are passing on the blame to the Skipper saying that he overode the computer from its Programmed route to get a bit closer to the Island to Sound the horns " Apparently a bit of a tradition" it appears he went a bit to close..

Or so the news says..

[justboatonic]

Thankfully very few lives lost although even one is too many.

Lots of information being leaked by the owning company saying the ship was way off course. also seems the captain was 'head of Security' when he joined the company in 2002 before succeeding as captain in 2006. Is that usual? I know people can change employment opportunities but security to ship's captain in 4 years?

Just read a report from the owners which said the ship will be out of commission until the end of the year! No kidding! Think it will until the 12th of never myself but you never know.

[Bryan Young]

I believe that the ship was ploughing along at a pretty good clip when she hit the rock(s). If that's so then using bow thrusters would (in my experience) be a real no-no. Bow thrusters are meant to be used at not much more than walking pace. Go much faster and the water just rushes past the inlets leaving the thruster blades or whatever sort of spinning uselessly. Be different if she was driven by "pods", but I believe she had conventional drive systems (?).
And here I speak from experience. When I was a young and gauche 3/O aboard "Mercury" I used the bow thruster to turn quickly (avoiding a stupid fishing boat). We were doing a leisurely 16 knots. I'd never used a bow thruster before. Finished up being a dry-dock job to fix it. No blame was attatched to me as it was decided that I'd been "improperly briefed". But lesson learned....the hard way! BY.

[Martin (Admin)]

I don't want to be unsympathetic here ....but it does annoy me that some of the interviewed survivors are surprised that 'a ship can sink' and that 'panic broke out'.

I saw the video clip from inside the lifeboat, several people were screaming, and someone calls out, "This isn't happening! This isn't happening!" - Now I've NEVER really been in a life and death situation.... but I did shout at my TV, "Yes it happening. You're safe in a lifeboat, deal with it. Now shut-up and be quiet, you're frightening the children."



... I just going to go for a short walk outside to cool off..... 

[dodgy geezer]

I believe that the ship was ploughing along at a pretty good clip when she hit the rock(s). If that's so then using bow thrusters would (in my experience) be a real no-no. Bow thrusters are meant to be used at not much more than walking pace. ....

Ah well, it was a thought. I defer to someone with more experience in this field. But even using the rudder would tend to swing the stern in. I was just looking for a reason why there did not seem to be any long scores down the length of the hull, but instead a localised impact...

[pugwash]

Got to agree with you Martin - to most of these people the ship is just a Hotel.  They have no comprehension of any danger at sea
that might occur with their "hotel". Things like this aren't supposed to happen on their holiday and they cannot cope and panic sets in.

Geoff

[Xtian29]

to most of these people the ship is just a Hotel.

 

And to most (all ?) owners of this kind of cruise ships, the ones looking Las Vegas hotel from inside and from outside, these ships are also just hotel with some minor problems as they are floating

Xtian