Terrible ferry tragedy off South Korea
Discussion
bostin01 said:
Authorities have revised that over 290 passengers/crew are still missing which 244 were high school students. The students were on a four-day school trip to Jeju Island. Reports state some students sent text messages soon after the accident. Divers are exploring the sunken vessel fearing that many on board were trapped below deck.
bostin01 said:
The vessel remained afloat for 8 hours before it finally rolled over and sank. Initial reports state the vessel took 18 minutes after the initial grounding before it sent out a distress call. The crew during this time urged passengers to stay calm, but not to prepare to evacuate the vessel.
If this is true - that is shocking. If the vessel remained floating for 8 hours it should have been almost 100% survivable.Esseesse said:
is it not possible to use one of those heavy lift ships in this kind of situation?
They are big, heavy b
ds and very slow to deploy.I'm not an expert, but I don't think there are that many of them around either. I know they cost a staggering amount to hire - so I'm guessing they must be rare beasts.
JohneeBoy said:
Is it possible there are people still alive in air pockets? I don't know how much air there might be or how long that would last someone. It's an even more terrifying prospect though; in the dark, air running low and knowing you're underwater.
Very possible. This guy survived for 3 days in sunken ship.http://youtu.be/M42MMdb9ueA
If I was that diver I would have s
t myself when I saw that hand reaching down.JohneeBoy said:
Is it possible there are people still alive in air pockets? I don't know how much air there might be or how long that would last someone. It's an even more terrifying prospect though; in the dark, air running low and knowing you're underwater.
I guess it's possible.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaan...
Digga said:
Esseesse said:
is it not possible to use one of those heavy lift ships in this kind of situation?
They are big, heavy bds and very slow to deploy.I'm not an expert, but I don't think there are that many of them around either. I know they cost a staggering amount to hire - so I'm guessing they must be rare beasts.
Self-evidently I don't know what I'm talking about so will shutup now lest someone who does know what they're on about come along
Rocksteadyeddie said:
Digga said:
Esseesse said:
is it not possible to use one of those heavy lift ships in this kind of situation?
They are big, heavy bds and very slow to deploy.I'm not an expert, but I don't think there are that many of them around either. I know they cost a staggering amount to hire - so I'm guessing they must be rare beasts.
Self-evidently I don't know what I'm talking about so will shutup now lest someone who does know what they're on about come along
Rocksteadyeddie said:
One would assume that given their ship building industry South Korea would have relatively easy access to one? Is this ship not too big for lifting that way though? It's 146m x 22m. Don't they use airbags and the like?
The Daewoo 3600 crane left Okpo for Jinro I believe, I can usually see it from my apartment window, and it's gone.Self-evidently I don't know what I'm talking about so will shutup now lest someone who does know what they're on about come along
The heavy lift cranes can lift a vessel of this size, but it's not a feasible rescue mechanism. It takes days if not weeks of planning to lift a ship with an unknown shifted cargo and flooding of an unknown number of compartments. Ships aren't stiff, do it wrong and it could snap in half while lifting. The vessel will be lifted eventually, but it will be body recovery job by then.
South Korea is a blame culture. Someone is getting f***ed over this. Note: someone. Any safety culture failures will be buried. That's like insulting Korea, and that would never do.
I'm disturbed by the lack of liftrafts in the pictures. They should auto-deploy with hydrostatic releases. I don't think it would have made any difference given the lack of folks who made it to the water, but if they were lashed down it doesn't say much for the safety culture.
sooperscoop said:
I'm disturbed by the lack of liftrafts in the pictures. They should auto-deploy with hydrostatic releases. I don't think it would have made any difference given the lack of folks who made it to the water, but if they were lashed down it doesn't say much for the safety culture.
Liferaft cradles aren't infallable, especially if they're a few years old; with the ship inverted there's a good chance the releases could activate but the rafts stay put.Yet another rationale for psychometric testing under duress...
There's too great a population of senior officers on board ships (particularly passenger ships) who have never had to perform under severe, lifethreatening pressure. So the industry has relied upon knowledge and learning of what to do in those situations, and drills to practice requirements. I know that we've managed to get an unprepared crew population of 1200 off a single gangway in under 7 minutes. Full ship clearance using nearly 20 lifeboats would take a similar amount of time (allowing for confused passengers etc., but with greater exit capacity), although fortunately we've never had to do it!
Over the last few years, we've seen that this simply isn't enough - when the chips are down, all that learning and practice goes straight out the window. Some operating lines have mitigated against this to an extent by having a high percentage of ex-Navy officers - in the UK this means a lot of them saw action in the Falklands/Gulf etc. Only last week I was chatting to a Fleet Trainer at my firm who had experience of being shot at with Exocets in the South Atlantic - great guy to help explain damage control and mitigation procedures and how to operate under stress!
Now the industry is moving towards effective psychometric testing prior to training to a particular role. If your psychological makeup is such that flight over-rides discipline, then you're ineligible for those roles. It'll be interesting to see if this makes any difference over the next few decades...
There's too great a population of senior officers on board ships (particularly passenger ships) who have never had to perform under severe, lifethreatening pressure. So the industry has relied upon knowledge and learning of what to do in those situations, and drills to practice requirements. I know that we've managed to get an unprepared crew population of 1200 off a single gangway in under 7 minutes. Full ship clearance using nearly 20 lifeboats would take a similar amount of time (allowing for confused passengers etc., but with greater exit capacity), although fortunately we've never had to do it!
Over the last few years, we've seen that this simply isn't enough - when the chips are down, all that learning and practice goes straight out the window. Some operating lines have mitigated against this to an extent by having a high percentage of ex-Navy officers - in the UK this means a lot of them saw action in the Falklands/Gulf etc. Only last week I was chatting to a Fleet Trainer at my firm who had experience of being shot at with Exocets in the South Atlantic - great guy to help explain damage control and mitigation procedures and how to operate under stress!
Now the industry is moving towards effective psychometric testing prior to training to a particular role. If your psychological makeup is such that flight over-rides discipline, then you're ineligible for those roles. It'll be interesting to see if this makes any difference over the next few decades...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff