114,500 GRT cruise ship capsized in Italy

[CJvR]

No, the CC tipped over after an hour or so. A RORO ship with water on the decks will tip over in minutes - a much much nastier type of accident.

[Sea Skimmer]

It will roll heavily if the vehicle deck floods in a heavy storm. That won't happen if it floods in a flat clam like this cruise ship did and doesn't make a high speed turn while flooding, like this cruise ship did. A RO-RO is close to ideal for sinking bodily in calm weather if it has been correctly loaded and ballasted.

If your thinking of Estonia, she had been incorrectly loaded ballasted as well as all her other problems and the known risks of bow doors on high speed ships.. leading among other things to the USN abandoning them in the 1960s for fast LSTs. She also simply had no design allowance for any water on the vehicle deck at all which was stupid when it was so low. Much better designs are possible and some do exist. You certainly don't hear much about the slow high freeboard LSTs of WW2 capsizing much, the things were tough as nails to sink even when loaded with ammo and gasoline fueled vehicles. A lot more free board would have also saved her, as it has saved car carriers once or twice with much larger load shifting risks.

Costa Concordia meanwhile seems to have been VERY lucky she retained enough power to beach herself, otherwise its likely she also would sunk much more quickly and likely with a much greater loss of life. Given how many people swum ashore I really hate to think what would have happened if she'd gone down in 1000 yards from shore.

[someone_else]

Heh, it may be tangential but I saw recent inspections made by a third party (an organization of consumers called Altroconsumo) on bigger car ferryboats serving the main italian isles, and they were all rateable as "dangerous". Some had less inflatables than necessary, some had evacuation ways obstructed by crap or made too small by design, or even lack clear signs (or don't have them at all). And of course only a couple had the car deck separated from the rest of the ship by fireproof doors.

If that is the standard on bigger ships as well (is still RINA that does official inspections on all seavessels), I'm amazed that this didn't end up with a death toll in the hundreds. And it likely did only because someone managed to get the ship close to the shore.

[Broomstick]

That, and the water obviously wasn't too cold for survival. Very important. Around where I live, if you fell into a lake this time of year you'd remain conscious maybe 2-3 minutes before the hypothermia got to you and you'd be first unconscious then dead in short order. I expect the water off Italy is a bit brisk this time of year, but given how many were able to swim ashore it can't be too bad.

[Edi]

It should be noted that they managed to beach the ship right on the edge of the reef. A few dozen meters farther out and the entire thing would be sitting several hundred feet below the surface at the very least, if not several hundred meters. There is still a risk of the wreck shifting and sliding off the shelf and vanishing into the depths, which is why they have to be careful with pumping out the oil and doing other operations on it.

[someone_else]

That, and the water obviously wasn't too cold for survival. Very important. Around where I live, if you fell into a lake this time of year you'd remain conscious maybe 2-3 minutes before the hypothermia got to you and you'd be first unconscious then dead in short order. I expect the water off Italy is a bit brisk this time of year, but given how many were able to swim ashore it can't be too bad.

A cursory web search tells me the average water temperature around that isle the ship ran aground in January is around 14 C°.

Btw, seems like the company is giving all responsiblity to the captain.

[Crossroads Inc.]

It should be noted that they managed to beach the ship right on the edge of the reef. A few dozen meters farther out and the entire thing would be sitting several hundred feet below the surface at the very least, if not several hundred meters. There is still a risk of the wreck shifting and sliding off the shelf and vanishing into the depths, which is why they have to be careful with pumping out the oil and doing other operations on it.

I have been thinking about this for a while and I keep coming back to this question...

Sure, the captain may have Fuckerd up BIG time, but if he was the one who turned the ship toward land, he may have also saved a lot of lives.

If that ship had been more away fro mthe coast, and had actually SUNK instead of just keeled over, I would expect a much MUCH higher death toll.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

[Edi]

Not really, since it had no business being anywhere near that close to the coast in the first place. If it hadn't deviated from its route, it would not have run aground and would still be intact. But at least they managed to get it close enough to shore that it didn't go into the deep.

[Dartzap]

There was something on News 24 a short-while ago that suggested that the ship was preforming the maritime equivalent of a fly past.

Also: search is going to resume shortly as well. There were some fears it was teetering on the edge of the shelf in the wind.

[Sky Captain]

There was something on News 24 a short-while ago that suggested that the ship was preforming the maritime equivalent of a fly past.

Yeah that's exactly what happened. Hera are images confirming it was a common practice for Costa Concordia to go close by that island. Appearently this time something went wrong and they crashed.

Here is reconstruction of their route that led them into the rocks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interac ... nteractive

Anyway in this case almost certainly captain is responsible for this disaster since ship of that size shouldn't be going that close to shore

[Thanas]

True. The problem for the cruise agency is if they knew of this or should have known about that and did nothing it makes them look even worse than they already do.

[Broomstick]

Btw, seems like the company is giving all responsiblity to the captain.

That is what usually happens. Sea captains are given a significant amount of authority and are held responsible for what happens to the ship. It goes with the job. If the ship sinks the captain is held responsible. That doesn't always mean he's always at fault (though usually, yes, he is to one degree or another), but he's responsible for keeping the ship safe, and for whatever is done (or not done) to meet an emergency.

[aerius]

Heard on the radio news that the captain took the ship off autopilot so he could buzz the island for whatever reason. He went several miles off-course according to the report.

[Sky Captain]

Whoops, something went wrong with my previous post.
Here is the link to images showing Costa Concordia going close by to the island on previous voyages.

http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/0 ... ref=HREA-1

[CJvR]

It takes a very special kind of asshole to plot a course like this...

CC stunt cruising...

[Thanas]

A few observations:

1. The Captain is a huge dirtbag and I hope they throw the book at him. Plotting a course like that, then lying about the rock he hit not being in the charts (or at least according to some local sailers they interviewed the rock is on the charts), then abandoning ship before his passengers, then refusing to go back and help the coast guard with the evacuation.
2. I do not believe that the company did not know about this route. There have been multiple pictures of past crossings like this. Yet the cruise line company, which watches over all stuff like machine wear and fuel spent, did not know this. Righto.
3. The rescue personnel and the Italian Coast Guard deserve a lot of credit for what they are currently doing. Putting themselves in harms way when knowing there is a risk the wreck could take you with it on the way to the bottom? Hero stuff right here.
4. The italians have also started deploying cave rescue units. Nice idea, not sure what they could do in the submerged area now though.

[S.L.Acker]

I'm willing to bet that between the loss of a ship, lawsuits, fines, and other legal fees this company won't be having a great fiscal year.

[Sky Captain]

2. I do not believe that the company did not know about this route. There have been multiple pictures of past crossings like this. Yet the cruise line company, which watches over all stuff like machine wear and fuel spent, did not know this. Righto.

I don't get the thinking of cruise company.
A cruise ship is a big investment that takes years to pay back. Any big accidents create tons of expensive lawsuits and bad PR which in turn reduce income or even may cause company go bankrupt. If anything cruise company should be first to fire an idiot captain after discovering he is taking ship worth half a billion off the planned course and into such dangerous places.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm willing to bet that between the loss of a ship, lawsuits, fines, and other legal fees this company won't be having a great fiscal year.

I know their stock's taking a hit.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

We don't know if the Captain even made the decision to beach. The way he abandoned his duties for all we know he just fled after the incident and the third officer or someone like that gave the order and executed the maneouvre. We won't know until the inquest, and it's useless to speculate until then. What is clear is there's some people--like one Italian retired mariner I forget the name of who was a passenger, and the French Air Force officer Ophelie Gondelle and her boyfriend the policeman David du Pays--who took charge in the situation and oversaw the lowering of lifeboats when the crew abandoned their posts--who deserve many accolades for heroic behaviour, along with doubtless many other passengers. It seems people with emergency experience in other areas stepped forward and handled the situation as the crew ignored the passengers, went "every man for himself", and abandoned the ship in a disordered panic. Though the Purser who was found alive and rescued should be giving credit for organizing the lowering of many lifeboats successfully and then going back in to look for survivors when he was wounded. He is one of the very few members of the crew who actually did his duty.

Unfortunately at this point the death toll is now 7 and the number of missing has been, despite finding another body, revised upwards from 16 to 29 as new data comes in. As the probability of finding anyone alive decreases and the revised tolls are actually increasing the number of missing, it seems quite likely that there are 36 fatalities from the wreck.

As for the question of what would have happened if the ship hadn't been close to shore? TStand by--this is informed speculation only! Wait for the inquest for the final conclusion:

Take a look at how she capsized--to starboard, when the damage was to port. This is due to the "free surface effect" of the massive amounts of water in the hold during a high speed turn to port that she executed to beach herself after taking damage. As she turned, the water swung out from the centrifugal force and established an equilibrium with the ship unable to right herself, at what was, at the start, a list of somewhere above 20 degrees. Grounding to port with the starboard of the ship in the ferry channel likely compounded the matter, so that she rapidly took on a list which caused the admission of water from the lower starboard scuttles and dragged her off if of the breakwater where she first grounded (can be seen in the pictures of the hull looming up against the lighthouse at dozens of meters) north to the Point of Seagulls where, floating, she rolled and grounded again on the rocks of the point in her death throes.

That is most likely why the ship sank to the opposite side as the damage.

The fact that a free surface effect was occurring during the turn only minutes after she struck the rock implies that she was taking on water at a fairly incredible rate; conservatively from looking at the photos I estimate she had 20 times the area of hull opened to the sea as the Titanic did, and I'm not sure if the class is double hulled, but the damage seems deep enough that it might well have substantially penetrated even an inner double hull. Great Eastern in the 1850s survived similar damage due to her double-hulled and extensively subdivided design in a similar circumstance, but was traveling much more slowly; the rock dug into the Costa Concordia far deeper. Modern safety standards for ships don't approach that level of byzantine subdivision due to the enormous costs it imposes on internal space and arrangements for carrying passengers and cargo, but are built of steel light-years ahead of the technology.

Regardless of those points, the key fact is that she was taking on water very fast. I'm going to assume the engines were mostly automated in operation as I honestly would expect heavier casualties from the engine room crews. I do not believe she could have survived more than two hours without having been run aground in any case. She might have sunk on an even keel allowing for the launch of all the lifeboats, however, which may have prevented people from jumping into the water and drowning. Hypothetically had she been further out to sea the number of potential outcomes is rather incalculable.

[Broomstick]

I thought that there were hundreds who wound up in the water and swimming, but only one or two of them actually drowned from leaping/falling overboard. At least two of the drowned where found inside the ship, having been unable to get out. If that is the case, then this is a situation where leaving without benefit of lifeboat and making a swim for shore might not have been bad odds.

But needless to say, the full facts are still coming in.

[Sea Skimmer]

2. I do not believe that the company did not know about this route. There have been multiple pictures of past crossings like this. Yet the cruise line company, which watches over all stuff like machine wear and fuel spent, did not know this. Righto.

The extra fuel wouldn't be remotely noticeable on a ship that big; variations from the direction of the wind and temperature of the water would matter more then a few miles would. What would be noticeable the fact that the navigation systems on modern ships like that keep complete records of all movements and from what I've heard, Carnival also has them stream the data to the company headquarters so they can track all ships on the globe in real time. That data also goes into an aircraft style black box recorder along with bridge audio which will soon be recovered.

I'm willing to bet that between the loss of a ship, lawsuits, fines, and other legal fees this company won't be having a great fiscal year.

The company has said 85-95 million USD will be lost this year from not being able to operate the ship, plus a 10 million insurance deductible and 30 million in higher insurance premiums this year. That's big for a company with 3 billion in revenue but not crippling. They have insurance against all the lawsuits; estimates are that the worst case payouts could be as high as 500 million; the ship was insured for its full value at 513 million USD. The real risk is from a long term loss of customers as Carnival just commissioned several new large liners, but the liner industry has been on the upswing for a while and I doubt that will reverse over one low fatality wreck they can pin on the captain.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they try to secure a temporary replacement for the Concordia on this route, it's very profitable.

[Uraniun235]

Alleged transcript of conversation between captain and port authority:

Here is the translation of the conversation between him and the port authority shortly after the accident, according to NBC News:

00:32am
The port authority asks the captain, Francesco Schettino, how many people are left on board. He says 200-300, therefore claiming unrealistically that 4,000 people were evacuated in only 40 minutes. It quickly becomes clear he has already abandoned ship.

Schettino: "Now I'll go back up", he claims. "I came out to check out to figure out what was happening."

PA (Port Authority):"Will you be the last on board?"

Schsttino:"I will be the last on board."

00:42am
PA asks how many people still need to be evacuated.

Schettino:"I called and they told me there are about 100 people. I am coordinating the operations. But I can't go back on it. We have abandoned the ship."

PA:"Captain, did you really abandon the ship??"

Schettino:"No, no, I am here, I am coordinating the evacuation."

PA:"Captain, this is an order, now I am in charge. Get back on that ship and coordinate the operations. There are already casualties."

Schettino:"How many?"

PA:"You should tell me that! What do you want to do, go home? Now you get back on that ship and tell us what can be done, how many people are still there and what do they need."

Schettino:"OK, OK, I am going."

(The captain will not get back on the ship)

Meanwhile, Italian coast guard officials late Monday raised number of missing from Friday's shipwreck to 29 -- four crew members and 25 passengers, a top coast guard official, Marco Brusco, said on state TV. That total is up from 16 cited by authorities earlier in the day. Bruno didn't immediately explain the rise. Six bodies have been recovered.

[S.L.Acker]

I'm willing to bet that between the loss of a ship, lawsuits, fines, and other legal fees this company won't be having a great fiscal year.

The company has said 85-95 million USD will be lost this year from not being able to operate the ship, plus a 10 million insurance deductible and 30 million in higher insurance premiums this year. That's big for a company with 3 billion in revenue but not crippling. They have insurance against all the lawsuits; estimates are that the worst case payouts could be as high as 500 million; the ship was insured for its full value at 513 million USD. The real risk is from a long term loss of customers as Carnival just commissioned several new large liners, but the liner industry has been on the upswing for a while and I doubt that will reverse over one low fatality wreck they can pin on the captain.

That sucks, I was really hoping this would nail them harder than that given the level of poor choices made and that fact that they had another wreck not too far back. Having that level of insurance available really insulates a company from the effects of their shitty choices.