Costa Concordia What will happen to it now?
Discussion
Max_Torque said:
2 questions for our more nautically informed posters (assuming you aren't all too busy Avasting or shivering your timbers of what ever else you lot get up to ;-)
1) why did the vessel seem to have listed towards the undamged side of the hull?? (perhaps that should be "seemingly undamaged" side and i assume there isn't sufficient "cargo" to cause a mass imbalance like on a RO-RO for example??)
2) When the seriousness of the situation became apparent, wouldn't it have been a good idea to drive the tub up the beach bows on in the hope it would settle on an even keel??
I'm not that nautical but my thoughts are1) why did the vessel seem to have listed towards the undamged side of the hull?? (perhaps that should be "seemingly undamaged" side and i assume there isn't sufficient "cargo" to cause a mass imbalance like on a RO-RO for example??)
2) When the seriousness of the situation became apparent, wouldn't it have been a good idea to drive the tub up the beach bows on in the hope it would settle on an even keel??
1) The hull fills with water, the ship turned away from the gash to make the harbour & as it rolled in the turn all the water poured across the lower decks tipping it further over.
2) It's about six inches from a habour, much more sensible to head for that as there are facilities to help rescue people (other boats etc) than look for a beach on what appears to be a steep shoreline where the ship could just slip back out to sea with the wave action before many people got off.
Yep looking at the images he was aiming to get in the harbour, making the best of a bad job when he realised he had dropped a major clanger. Had he managed that he may well be regarded as a hero, instead he’s the villain of the piece, running aground certainly will put pay to his career ferrying passengers about but lets wait for all the facts before we condemn him to the gallows.
As suggested the fact its sat on the undamaged side would be down to the hard turn with all the excess water on board.
As suggested the fact its sat on the undamaged side would be down to the hard turn with all the excess water on board.
IanMorewood said:
Yep looking at the images he was aiming to get in the harbour, making the best of a bad job when he realised he had dropped a major clanger. Had he managed that he may well be regarded as a hero, instead he’s the villain of the piece, running aground certainly will put pay to his career ferrying passengers about but lets wait for all the facts before we condemn him to the gallows.
As suggested the fact its sat on the undamaged side would be down to the hard turn with all the excess water on board.
He would'nt of tried to get in the harbour, as the ship is way too big for it. If I knew there was water in the hull, then I wouldn't of turned the ship so hard.As suggested the fact its sat on the undamaged side would be down to the hard turn with all the excess water on board.
zasker said:
I might be missing something but if he turned away from the gash i.e. to starboard, then surely the ship would have rolled to port.
As you look from the bridge the gash is on the left hand side. He was originally heading in the opposite irection to the ship is now lying. Therefore he turned to his left and the ship rolled on to its right hand side.Well thats the theory!
Speaking with the Deck Officers on the Ship I work, they reckon, if the ship after it was holed, was driven into shallow water (The reason why escapes them) and then ran aground again. It would not take much of a drop in the sea level(tide) for the centre of gravity normally held within its area of buoyancy to start to pull the ship over, this coupled with the likely uneven/shelving seabed and further damage caused in the second grounding for it to heave over past the point of no return. There would be little or no buoyant support on that side due to further holing to the plating and busted portholes etc.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
RedLeicester said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
RedLeicester said:
Smit do seem to be the default in these gigs. They must be getting a bit bored of it by now! At least the Kursk had the excitment of things wot blow up.
That was my idea btw......(I mean the Strandjacks down both sides of a barge, utilise a single barge not two, and keep the Kursk thus hidden from 'dem pesky Satellites in dat dere sky
)
Racist typo I am SO sorry!
spitfire-ian said:
I did read one report somewhere that said they tried to use the ballast tanks on the opposite side to the gash to balance the ship.
Often the crews first action and often the wrong one.It can make the ship roll violently in the opposite direction, this makes the unstable cargo, flood water etc shift to the lower side and increase the roll rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_loll
Edited by DJFish on Saturday 21st January 08:59
tdm34 said:
Captain was flirting with some Blonde dancer on the bridge at the time of the
incident, apparently.............
What's Italian for "WATCH THIS"
I'm surprised no PHer has thought of this.....
They have & there is even a T-shirt. You need to search the thread in News, Politics & something else to find it though.incident, apparently.............
What's Italian for "WATCH THIS"
I'm surprised no PHer has thought of this.....
Semi hemi said:
Speaking with the Deck Officers on the Ship I work, they reckon, if the ship after it was holed, was driven into shallow water (The reason why escapes them) and then ran aground again. It would not take much of a drop in the sea level(tide) for the centre of gravity normally held within its area of buoyancy to start to pull the ship over, this coupled with the likely uneven/shelving seabed and further damage caused in the second grounding for it to heave over past the point of no return. There would be little or no buoyant support on that side due to further holing to the plating and busted portholes etc.
If the ship is touching the seabed, then a number of other factors come into play. The seabed will be exerting a force on the hull, which will manifest itself as a loss of GM. The tidal range in the Med is quite small, and appears to have been around 30cm in this area on the evening of the sinking, and although this would alter the position of the centroid of the underwater volume (the centre of buoyancy) as the tide changed, it would also alter the way the force on the vessel (from it being in contact with the seabed) is affecting the vessels stabilty. When considering the centre of buoyancy, it also has to be remembered that the water rushing into the hull would have made the vessel sink bodily, therefore increasing the vessel's underwater volume and altering the position of the centre of buoyancy.Anyway, it appears that the hole in the hull probably breached a number of compartments, which when coupled with a massive ingress of water (which the main and emergency bilge pumping arrangements could not ultimately cope with), watertight doors not being closed, a huge free surface effect and subsequent loss of GM, has led to the vessel falling over.
A very interesting link to the actual path of the ship and how the Captain managed to maneuver a very crippled ship onto the shore.
http://vimeo.com/35351659
It's a bit long winded but very informative, it also shows that she did not do a 180 degree turn to the left as many people speculated
http://vimeo.com/35351659
It's a bit long winded but very informative, it also shows that she did not do a 180 degree turn to the left as many people speculated
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff