Costa Concordia (Titanic 2012)

[WindyOut]

It was the first night of the cruise, the vessel was on passage to Marseille, heading on a perfect course to pass between the two islands, then suddenly - about 13 miles from its final resting place - the vessel turned off this perfect course to head straight for Isola di Giglio.

Why?

Could it be that the submerged item wa struck at that point (not off Giglio) and that by heading at full pelt (about 25 minutes' steaming) for the shallow waters close to the harbour on Giglio was the captain's response, putting the ship deliberately onto the rocks, listing to starboard into order to stem water ingress?

I speculate. But it fits the current public evidence. If so, he's a hero. But what did he hit offshore?

WindyOut

 

[photodog]

It was the first night of the cruise, the vessel was on passage to Marseille, heading on a perfect course to pass between the two islands, then suddenly - about 13 miles from its final resting place - the vessel turned off this perfect course to head straight for Isola di Giglio.

Why?

Could it be that the submerged item wa struck at that point (not off Giglio) and that by heading at full pelt (about 25 minutes' steaming) for the shallow waters close to the harbour on Giglio was the captain's response, putting the ship deliberately onto the rocks, listing to starboard into order to stem water ingress?

I speculate. But it fits the current public evidence. If so, he's a hero. But what did he hit offshore?

WindyOut

Yeah, we've gone over this theory quite a bit if you go back and read some of the earlier threads... (There's a lot... I know!)

There is some video posted which shows the same ship at the same time last year passing very close inshore to the village..... ergo... its at least the second time they have brought her in to do a "flyby" of this spot...

ergo... they screwed up the pilotage..

 

[[32511]]

In addition to the two large rocky islets near the shore, just south-east of the harbour, there is a small rock slightly further out. Was this the one they didn't notice on the 'fly-by'?

 

[dt4134]

Seeing the sail past last year I wonder if these same detour was planned but went horribly horribly wrong...
Confused navigator misinterpreting information, not used to deviating form passage plan?

Sounds the most plausible theory so far. Somehow they just messed up the turn, perhaps got distracted and left it too late. It was maybe just chance that they passed inshore of the islet.

 

[Seajet]

If this does turn out to be a 'fly-by' - and a good question for the Captain would be " who do you know on the island, then ? ", and mobile phone records should be informative, it would very likely be the single most idiotic act I have ever heard of in history...

 

[dt4134]

I speculate. But it fits the current public evidence. If so, he's a hero. But what did he hit offshore?

It doesn't fit with the current publicly available evidence on the chart. It would require something big to cause that damage plus perhaps further damage on the starboard side. And they must've been in a tight turn when they struck it.

 

[ITH]

In addition to the two large rocky islets near the shore, just south-east of the harbour, there is a small rock slightly further out. Was this the one they didn't notice on the 'fly-by'?

Looking at the C-Map chart of the area, Photodog's conjecture looks right: it beggars belief that going between Isole Le Scole and the other (un-named) rock, was a planned manoeuvre. The shortest distance between the two shore lines is circa 70M, and that between the 10M depth contour lines is circa 10 to 15M. With a 35.5M beam, the Costa Concordia was never going to go through there unscathed. Also, the other "small rock" referred to is listed as an 'obstruction point' with a minimum known depth of 9.8M, which the C.C. should probably have cleared, given her 7.8M draft?

 

[longjohnsilver]

A friend just posted this in Another Place:

Same ship, same place, same time of day, last year...

http://video.corriere.it/nave-concordia-al-giglio-/9dfa5ea6-3e9b-11e1-8b52-5f77182bc574

It may be horribly simple.

Seems to just show a page of pics dated this month?

 

[Kukri]

Seems to just show a page of pics dated this month?

It says: "Il passaggio dell'agosto 2011", if you are seeing the video clip that I see, which is labelled, "La nave Concordia vicino al Giglio".

 

[[32511]]

Looking at the C-Map chart of the area, Photodog's conjecture looks right: it beggars belief that going between Isole Le Scole and the other (un-named) rock, was a planned manoeuvre. The shortest distance between the two shore lines is circa 70M, and that between the 10M depth contour lines is circa 10 to 15M. With a 35.5M beam, the Costa Concordia was never going to go through there unscathed. Also, the other "small rock" referred to is listed as an 'obstruction point' with a minimum known depth of 9.8M, which the C.C. should probably have cleared, given her 7.8M draft?

The chart, on post 59, appears to show rocks with cover of 7.8m. The draught of the Costa Concordia is 8.2m. If she was heeling, this could possibly be a bit more, depending on hull shape.
However, both the aerial photo on Google Earth, and the photo on my post 140 show a rock well above sea level.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Looking at the C-Map chart of the area, Photodog's conjecture looks right: it beggars belief that going between Isole Le Scole and the other (un-named) rock, was a planned manoeuvre. The shortest distance between the two shore lines is circa 70M, and that between the 10M depth contour lines is circa 10 to 15M. With a 35.5M beam, the Costa Concordia was never going to go through there unscathed. Also, the other "small rock" referred to is listed as an 'obstruction point' with a minimum known depth of 9.8M, which the C.C. should probably have cleared, given her 7.8M draft?

Can anyone tell me why in all the photos of the capsized ship outside the harbour at Porto Giglio, it appears to be heading south? If the ship had grounded on Le Scole and then made for Porto Giglio, surely it would have sunk facing north. Doesn't seem to tally with the AIS record or did it attempt to turn into the harbour?

 

[[32511]]

Can anyone tell me why in all the photos of the capsized ship outside the harbour at Porto Giglio, it appears to be heading south? If the ship had grounded on Le Scole and then made for Porto Giglio, surely it would have sunk facing north. Doesn't seem to tally with the AIS record or did it attempt to turn into the harbour?

See post 126, amongst others.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

See post 126, amongst others.

OK seems plausible

 

[Kukri]

I've just seen a report, on Croatian TV, that the officer who had the con, who obviously realised the ship was in a sinking condition, went hard a-port, dropped the port anchor and turned her on it, intending to get alongside the harbour wall, as he had so many elderly and frail people aboard. His idea was that they could get ashore without using the boats, but he did not quite make it.

Quick thinking and good seamanship that may have saved a couple of thousand lives.

But if he was responsible for the flyby, it does not make up for the initial folly.

See, eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Mikhail_Lermontov

 

[jax]

They need to look this way because of their business model, enormous amounts of affordable accommodation. Cruises on ships that look like ships are much more expensive because there are less passengers.

Ah well! that makes it OK then. Perhaps we should shorten the wings on B747s to save fuel and get more pax aboard

 

[Seajet]

I've just seen a report, on Croatian TV, that the officer who had the con, who obviously realised the ship was in a sinking condition, went hard a-port, dropped the port anchor and turned her on it, intending to get alongside the harbour wall, as he had so many elderly and frail people aboard. His idea was that they could get ashore without using the boats, but he did not quite make it.

Quick thinking and good seamanship that may have saved a couple of thousand lives.

But if he was responsible for the flyby, it does not make up for the initial folly.

See, eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Mikhail_Lermontov

Would have been good...can't see if the port anchor is still there on photo's here.

 

[Boomshanka]

Would have been good...can't see if the port anchor is still there on photo's here.

Maybe the port prop(s) were taken out by the grounding... if engines full ahead at the time then she would have spun round pretty sharpish with drive on s/board I would have thought?

 

[Seajet]

Maybe the port prop(s) were taken out by the grounding... if engines full ahead at the time then she would have spun round pretty sharpish with drive on s/board I would have thought?

Hmmm, not sure that she would, without the port engine ( & prop ) in hard astern; and if the prop had gone, but the port engine selected hard astern, would he know in such a short time ?

Would be very interesting to see if the port anchor has been dropped, to see if that story of the heroic 'handbrake turn' is true.

Also if he did turn her on the anchor, he'd then have to let the chain run out or it would stop her going forward; sounds a lot to ask the foredeck crew, and they presumably wouldn't have been there ready ?!

Do ships such as this have a remote control of the anchor from the bridge ?

The more I think about it, the less I believe that one.

 

[Erik C]

Ah well! that makes it OK then. Perhaps we should shorten the wings on B747s to save fuel and get more pax aboard

 

[BrendanS]

Hmmm, not sure that she would, without the port engine ( & prop ) in hard astern; and if the prop had gone, but the port engine selected hard astern, would he know in such a short time ?

Would be very interesting to see if the port anchor has been dropped, to see if that story of the heroic 'handbrake turn' is true.

There should be enough pics on internet to find one with anchor chain down