![[32511]](https://ybw-data.community.forum/avatars/m/32/32511.jpg?1576058889){kind=avatar}
[32511]
...
Look at the AIS animation before you post!
Costa Concordia (Titanic 2012)
- Thread starter RichardTaylor
- Start date
Seajet
...
I did, thanks; are you suggesting the ship got there by carrying way ? ( momentum )...
Blueboatman
Well-Known Member
I find it interesting that there is effectively no 'predictive' software or capability beyond cross track error on these multiple radar and AIS/plotter equipped vessels.
The ship got into a scenario where the captain was out of useful options, the ship doomed like a crappy Hollywood movie, some time before impact.
And lacked the thruster, reverse or other tool to avoid or minimise an impending impact.
Do these flat bottomed vessels, for example, have some sort of performance curve printed out? That would at least show what the tightest turn radius could be fir any given loading/velocity/rudder/prop/ thruster settings.
Secondly, given the AIS tracks that have been published, who of us humble WAFIS would approach a shoal dead on, at an angle, knowingly intending to execute a handbrake turn at the tightest latest possible moment? Why didn't the Capt approach on one straight course that would do the flyby/braggadocio thing without involving a turn, manual or plotter driven?
Seems like compound error to me, as so many'disasters' are.
The ship got into a scenario where the captain was out of useful options, the ship doomed like a crappy Hollywood movie, some time before impact.
And lacked the thruster, reverse or other tool to avoid or minimise an impending impact.
Do these flat bottomed vessels, for example, have some sort of performance curve printed out? That would at least show what the tightest turn radius could be fir any given loading/velocity/rudder/prop/ thruster settings.
Secondly, given the AIS tracks that have been published, who of us humble WAFIS would approach a shoal dead on, at an angle, knowingly intending to execute a handbrake turn at the tightest latest possible moment? Why didn't the Capt approach on one straight course that would do the flyby/braggadocio thing without involving a turn, manual or plotter driven?
Seems like compound error to me, as so many'disasters' are.
tony_lavelle
Well-Known Member
Detailed AIS track
Actually it seems this reconstruction of the ship's movements was by these guys:
http://www.qps.nl
This animation is much more detailed and revealing than what we saw previously from marinetraffic.com. I wonder where they got the data from?
Note the SIDEWAYS movement as the ship slowly approaches its final grounding. The heading is SE but the COG is SW. Also note that the rocky ledge is fringed by sand and mud below the 10m contour.
I wonder if it might have been easier to quickly weld some steel sheet over the holes and pump her out. They'll have to do that eventually. That way the ship would be floating level, leakage of fuel would be prevented and recovery of victims would be easier.
Actually it seems this reconstruction of the ship's movements was by these guys:
http://www.qps.nl
This animation is much more detailed and revealing than what we saw previously from marinetraffic.com. I wonder where they got the data from?
Note the SIDEWAYS movement as the ship slowly approaches its final grounding. The heading is SE but the COG is SW. Also note that the rocky ledge is fringed by sand and mud below the 10m contour.
I wonder if it might have been easier to quickly weld some steel sheet over the holes and pump her out. They'll have to do that eventually. That way the ship would be floating level, leakage of fuel would be prevented and recovery of victims would be easier.
Erik C
Well-Known Member
BigJoe
Well-Known Member
Good info and video on G-Captain.
http://gcaptain.com/gcaptains-john-...maneuvers-of-the-costa-concordia-video/?37941
Sorry if it’s already been posted.
http://gcaptain.com/gcaptains-john-...maneuvers-of-the-costa-concordia-video/?37941
Sorry if it’s already been posted.
haydude
Well-Known Member
Some more interesting witnesses accounts from last night's Matrix programme (yet another media trial):
1) crew in charge of passengers followed their training to manage panic
in the meantime
2) crew in charge of lifeboats prepared the lifeboats for launch long before the abandon ship alarm was sounded.
in fact when the alarm sounded passengers (who were complaining as usual) admitted that:
3) when they reached their muster stations lifeboats were there ready, chocks removed, covers removed, and with crew waiting for them.
Lots of passengers complained in the past few days about finding "cooks" and "waiters" at the lifeboats, however without knowing that these were in fact the people assigned, trained and qualified to handle the lifeboats and everything went according to plan. They still complained that they did not see officers at the lifeboats. The presenter was clearly biased against the crew, but it was struggling to find any wrongdoing, so eventually he said something like "well but the captain did wrong anyway"
Someone noted that had (1) not happened (2) and (3) could have been a lot more difficult.
To me this says that someone must have given order to prepare abandon ship to crew long before the passengers received it and the delay must have been part of the procedure to manage panic and to give time to the officers to assess the damage.
All but 2 lifeboats were launched eventually.
1) crew in charge of passengers followed their training to manage panic
in the meantime
2) crew in charge of lifeboats prepared the lifeboats for launch long before the abandon ship alarm was sounded.
in fact when the alarm sounded passengers (who were complaining as usual) admitted that:
3) when they reached their muster stations lifeboats were there ready, chocks removed, covers removed, and with crew waiting for them.
Lots of passengers complained in the past few days about finding "cooks" and "waiters" at the lifeboats, however without knowing that these were in fact the people assigned, trained and qualified to handle the lifeboats and everything went according to plan. They still complained that they did not see officers at the lifeboats. The presenter was clearly biased against the crew, but it was struggling to find any wrongdoing, so eventually he said something like "well but the captain did wrong anyway"
Someone noted that had (1) not happened (2) and (3) could have been a lot more difficult.
To me this says that someone must have given order to prepare abandon ship to crew long before the passengers received it and the delay must have been part of the procedure to manage panic and to give time to the officers to assess the damage.
All but 2 lifeboats were launched eventually.
Seajet
...
I've been wrong about this before - as was gleefully pointed out by some prat keener to have a go at me than discuss the notion - but in Pic 4 on that link, is it an anchor chain in the background ?
I still think it would be lucky to deploy an anchor in the time available, but someone said he did it...
I still think it would be lucky to deploy an anchor in the time available, but someone said he did it...
haydude
Well-Known Member
Both anchors were deployed, but it is becoming apparent that it was too late to having been effective for the turn.
msowsun
New Member
Photos seem to imply the ship got very close to the pier and then drifted back. The animation doesn't seem to show that:
Kukri
Well-Known Member
Yes, that would be the desirable procedure (I cannot say "normal" procedure -ships don't sink every day!)
It's not unusual to have hotel staff with lifeboat certificates - we certainly did.
I wonder - if the passengers who have been complaining were in an aircraft that crash landed, would they insist on being shown to the emergency exits by the Captain and First Officer, or would they follow the directions of the cabin crew?
Last edited:
Kukri
Well-Known Member
I am not comfortable with AIS reconstructions, but if anything the track suggests that the ship was drifting and the wind was west or northwest. Anyone know if it was?
I really would not expect the emergency generators to be able to power a thruster.
I really would not expect the emergency generators to be able to power a thruster.
Seajet
...
I wonder - if the passengers who have been complaining were in an aircraft that crash landed, would they insist on being shown to the emergency exits by the Captain and First Officer, or would they follow the directions of the cabin crew?
Minn,
for the first time I think that's a slightly spurious argument from you; the Captain should have been there to try to give an overall description of what was happening for the CG co-ordination, and maybe even get physically involved.
Minn,
for the first time I think that's a slightly spurious argument from you; the Captain should have been there to try to give an overall description of what was happening for the CG co-ordination, and maybe even get physically involved.
3Sheets
Well-Known Member
According to a report in the Telegraph a fellow Captain who was travelling on board took charge and ordered the evacuation.
read report here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...raceful-says-cruise-ships-reluctant-hero.html
read report here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...raceful-says-cruise-ships-reluctant-hero.html
Boomshanka
Well-Known Member
If the quotes are true from Captain Bosio, then this is indeed what I would expect any captain (or skipper) to have done:
“Don’t call me a hero. I just did my duty, the duty of a sea captain – actually the duty of a normal man.
“I and the others with me just did our duty. We looked each other in the eyes for a second and then we Just got on with it.”
Kukri
Well-Known Member
We're at cross purposes, I believe.
I certainly would expect the Master to remain on the bridge and I would expect other officers to carry out the duties specified in the muster list, as I'm sure most of them did, but I would expect that most passengers will have been embarked in the boats by cruise staff, and the fact that they did not see an officer did not mean that no officers were present.
Last edited:
Sailfree
Well-Known Member
Driving home at 03.30 on BBC world service there was an interview with the Deputy mayor (with ongoing translation).
IIRC the basics were that once the disaster was known by the police phoning the Mayor/deputy Mayor they agreed that the deputy mayor should go on board to assist rescue efforts which he did.
He talked about working for 6.5hrs before being relieved by fire service and other rescue authorities. He spoke of using ropes to lift people to safe positions and having to prise the fingers of frightened passengers from door handles/handhold so that they could be lead to safety. He was full of praise for a young officer the 2nd officer whom he frequently described as a "boy" (so young).
He insisted that he never saw anyone more senior than the 2nd officer and that it was the 2nd officer directing most of the rescue efforts.
The deputy mayor came over as a good witness, modest (did not hype up his own efforts), and admitted to being very frightened but overcome by the events that they had to do everything they could to help.
The impression I got was there was no central direction from the ships officers just individual crew members doing their bit with little ability to communicate between various areas of the ship.
The deputy mayor admitted to being very tired before he was relieved but once relieved he lost his own concentration and fell over in the slippery conditions. He had mention that there was oil and it was slippery earlier in his narative.
If the majority of media reports are to be believed there does need to be a comprehensive review of how the captains and senior ships officers failed to respond in a reasonable time, to instruct abandon ship at the first opportunity it became apparent as necessary and failed to lead and coordinate a orderly evacuation.
It appears to me that it was only that the ship grounded on its side so near to shore that the loss of life was not greater than the Titanic. I dread to think of the potential death toll had the ship sunk in deeper water and further from the shore.
IIRC the basics were that once the disaster was known by the police phoning the Mayor/deputy Mayor they agreed that the deputy mayor should go on board to assist rescue efforts which he did.
He talked about working for 6.5hrs before being relieved by fire service and other rescue authorities. He spoke of using ropes to lift people to safe positions and having to prise the fingers of frightened passengers from door handles/handhold so that they could be lead to safety. He was full of praise for a young officer the 2nd officer whom he frequently described as a "boy" (so young).
He insisted that he never saw anyone more senior than the 2nd officer and that it was the 2nd officer directing most of the rescue efforts.
The deputy mayor came over as a good witness, modest (did not hype up his own efforts), and admitted to being very frightened but overcome by the events that they had to do everything they could to help.
The impression I got was there was no central direction from the ships officers just individual crew members doing their bit with little ability to communicate between various areas of the ship.
The deputy mayor admitted to being very tired before he was relieved but once relieved he lost his own concentration and fell over in the slippery conditions. He had mention that there was oil and it was slippery earlier in his narative.
If the majority of media reports are to be believed there does need to be a comprehensive review of how the captains and senior ships officers failed to respond in a reasonable time, to instruct abandon ship at the first opportunity it became apparent as necessary and failed to lead and coordinate a orderly evacuation.
It appears to me that it was only that the ship grounded on its side so near to shore that the loss of life was not greater than the Titanic. I dread to think of the potential death toll had the ship sunk in deeper water and further from the shore.
Last edited:
Capt Popeye
Well-Known Member
yes, the beaching / grounding so close inshore certainly would appear to have enabled many to get off the Ship
rather like the 'Herald of Free Enterprise' beaching on a sandbank
the thought of either Ship sinking in deeper waters is horrifying
nigel1
Well-Known Member
Bow thrusters will pull a vessel forward (slightly), well known phenonemen.
Due to the hull shape forward, more water is pulled into the tunnel from ahead of the tunnel than from astern, so its not thrusted fwd, but pulled
Tidewaiter2
Well-Known Member
I agree with you, Minn, it's the difference between a crew member's normal work station and 'normal duties' and their 'closed up to Action Stations' role and work station so beloved of WWII films. Something the punters would not understand.
Waiter one minute, LB helm the next-
I assume that in MN, all the relatively small seaman/engineering crew would be needed for firefighting/ damage control parties, so supernumeries/catering staff do the evacuate the punters bit?
The old RN did it the other way round, DCP's being filled with Stewards, Cooks, Writers and other 'expendables'
