Vampire Parrot
-
Posts
650 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Store
Blogs
Downloads
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Vampire Parrot
-
-
[QUOTE]
I totlaly agree especailly since there have been some U tube clips showing the Conocrta passing almost as close on past voyages.
I have had this position from the start........the Office staff knew and approved this showboating in the past.
That if course does not in anyway let the Master off the hook.
AKK [URL="http://cruiseforums.cruisecritic.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=34189041"][IMG]http://cruiseforums.cruisecritic.com/images/buttons/quote.gif[/IMG][/URL][/QUOTE]
A properly planned and executed sail-past of an island is perfectly safe. Every cruise ship does something quite similar several times each week - when approaching and leaving pretty much every port. For example going into and out of Malta takes great skill and requires taking the ship within a few hundred metres of very solid breakwaters. Another example - driving a ship through the Norwegian Fjords looks very scary as those Fjords are narorw, but if properly planned and executed it is very routine and very safe.
What was different with Costa Concordia is that for reasons not yet fully understood, the Captain apparently took the conn from the officers of the watch and took the ship on a course other than that planned. Deviating from a planned course without a good reason and without discussing it with the other bridge officers is a recipe for disaster.
If the previous sail pasts were properly planned and executed, and I have no reason to beleive they were not, then in those cases the ship was at all times safe.
VP -
Something happen to the Costa Serena, or was that a mistake?CA ... I think they were just using the Serena as a model for Concordia.
Sidari is correct, it's normal for the data for one ship in a class to be used to model the behavior of another ship in the same class. For example, the "Pilot's chart" on the bridge of Vista-class vessels shows the behavior of the ship in terms of stopping distance, turning circle at full rudder, etc. The Pilot's charts I've seen on Vista class vessels all state that it's the data for the Zuiderdam, which was the first of the class.
The Serena is a Concordia-class vessel so it's appropriate to use her stability simulation computer.
VP
VP
-
CaptainMCD said:
That is what astonishes the merry hell out of me too. A few years ago, another Carnival Group line, P&O, invested a lot of money & time in implementing a fleet-wide BTCC (Bridge Team Command and Control) system, lead by Captain Ian Walters. Captain Walters spent a year training and coaching P&O bridge teams world-wide in BTCC.I still can not understand how the Concordia went so badly afoul of existing rules, since Italy has signed on to all the applicable conventions, SOLAS, ISM, ISPS, STCW, all of which are monitored by their class society, flag state, port states, etc.Maybe it's for cultural reasons that BTCC hasn't (yet?) been implemented in other Carnival Group lines. If I were a betting man (and I am....) I would bet that the next lines to implement BTCC would be Princess (due to very close operational and historical connections with P&O), then Cunard (P&O and Cunard exchange deck officers - QM2 Captain Kevin Oprey's first command was P&O's Arcadia).
But it seems to me that the next line to implement BTCC should be Costa. Because if there are cultural issues - and I hope there aren't - however if there are cultural issues then perhaps Costa would gain the most benefit.
VP
-
From the AIS data that has been made available: he didn't start his sharp turn to port to avoid the island until he was less than 500 metres from the rock. Turning hard to port, no matter what he did with the engines, would have caused the ship to hit the island. Reversing the port engine would have produced an additional turning force to port, but it wouldn't have been enough to avoid hitting the island head-on.....They say hindsight is 20-20 but turning to port, reverse engines to starboard would probably been much better but would not have impressed his audience with his daredevil skills.Some of the most fun you can have when driving a vessel is to simulate rudder failure by keeping it midships, and then steer just using differential engine power.
StarBoy was grand-standing, and at full speed!We've all done this in our youth (us boys, not you girls..)
Schettino reckons he's still in his early 20s it would seem. Bet he's considerably more mature now.
What is it the girls say about us? ...that we never really grow up?
.
SOG (Speed over ground) when he made his turn was, according to the AIS information, 15.5 knots. Concordia-class ships have a service speed of 20 knots, so he wasn't quite going at full speed.... but he was going far too fast for where he was.
Boys never do grow up. The difference between a man and a boy is the size (and cost) of his toys!
VP
-
Vanity Fair has an article on Concordia in this months issue.
At the end of the article in the following link there is an excerpt link worth reading.
The article says:
The captain, who was casually talking on the phone when the ship approached the rocks, wrongly ordered the ship to turn to starboard, rather than port, to avoid the mostly submerged rock when he finally did see it. That caused the ship’s stern to swing around and slam into it, ripping open a 230-foot-long gash below the waterline.The ship was turned too late, that we know. If the ship had been turned to port, the stern would not have hit the submerged rock, it's true - and that's because the ship would then have hit the island almost head-on at 15 knots. Which, I would argue, would be rather worse.
VP
-
I've just watched the European edition of Discovery's "Cruise Ship Disaster" program.
Discovery have a lot of experience of producing programs about Air Accidents, and that experience shows. The program wasn't overly dramatic, it contained enough human interest stories to not be dry, and still managed to concentrate on the known facts and probable conclusions.
For some reason, the Flag of Europe on Concordia's shoulder is blurred out in the opening sequence, why I don't know.
There are some very short extracts of the video shot on the bridge after Concordia hit the rocks. More extensive footage is available on various websites.
The CGI footage of Concordia before and after the collision annoyed me; the lights being shown by the ship were wrong. A minor point but typical of journalistic carelessness.
The Massachusetts Maritime Academy (MMA) gave their opinion as to the cause and the subsequent actions. The physical cause of the accident was turning too late, travelling too fast, leading to the rocks penetrating the hull leading to flooding of three or four compartments. At no point did they suggest that thrusters were used to move Concordia closer to land.
The decision process leading to the physical cause wasn't explored, and that's what I'm really interested in. That will come out in the preliminary accident report, due out in May. (The program didn't state that the report is due out in May. The Italian Authorities have stated to the International Maritime Organisation that they will have a preliminary report ready for the IMO meeting in May)
The MMA said that Concordia going aground was the wind pushing her ashore, due to the large sail area she presented. Anyone who has had to maneuver a vessel in a confined area with a crosswind will know exactly what they mean.
Nothing was said about the Captain being distracted. Nothing was said about Domnica Cemortan, the Moldovan Blonde woman.
VP
-
So very true and not always appreciated. Excellent point.One past captain in a previous thread had noted that the ship was probably sliding somewhat sideways as she scraped the rocks as turning at that speed causes the ship to slide in the water,The sideways effect can catch people out.
Some numbers about the sideways effect:
A ship turns around it's 'pivot point'. With most ships, this is pretty close to amidships in calm water, ship on an even keel, ship not under power.
However the pivot point is not fixed.
When a ship is moving forward, the pivot point will move forward as steering takes place from the rudder. If there was no water resistance, the pivot point would actually be very close to the bow! Due to water resistance, the pivot point moves about 1/4 way back from the bow. So with Costa Concordia, which is 952 feet long, the pivot point would be approximately 250 feet from the bow, 700 feet from the stern. To see what this would be like, take a pencil, mark it 1/4 of the way down, and move it along your desk in an arc, pivoting it around the point you've made. See how much the stern of your pencil swings out.
VP
-
Does anyone have thoughts on how reckless a speed the Concordia was traveling when it hit the rocks? The reports are that the ship increased its speed to 16 knots at the time of the collision. I have no reference point for maritime speeds. The service speed of the Concordia is apparently 19.6 knots with a maximum speed of 23 knots. Is there such a thing as a "safe speed" for this situation? The reports are that the ship was slowed down so the captain could enjoy his meal....any thoughts on what that speed might have been before the ship sped up?
The navigation instrumements (actually, on the electronic chart display) on the bridge show information such as "ETA", "TTG" (time to go), and "spare". "spare" is time not needed, it's spare time.
The passage will have been planned such that at certain speeds, Concordia would have arrived at her destination on time. By slowing down, and changing her course such that she'd be covering more ground, she'd need to travel faster later on. Not always a problem; if for example the average required speed was 16 knots over 12 hours and she'd make 20 knots easily, then the Navigator would have said we've got 4 knots times say 12 hours, 48 nautical miles we've got spare. Which may be what the Captain was relying on - go slow towards the island, buzz the island, speed up a bit and everything will be fine. But he got it wrong. Too fast, too close.
As for "safe speed" - if Concordia had kept a safe distance from the island, say 2 nautical miles - then allowing for traffic, 20 knots would have been safe. Go close and all bets are off as far as I am concerned. Close is for mooring up. Close is when a pilot is on board. Close is slow speed. Close is a fully manned, briefed bridge. Close is the Captain is in charge, supported by the rest of the team, i.e. the Deputy Captain, two other officers of the watch, lookouts, etc.
VP
Edited to add: too much factual information - I'll shut up!
-
If anyone is interested, the chart to reference when examining Costa Concordia's final track is It74 (B), Porti Dell'Argentario E Dell'Isola Del Giglio - Porto Del Giglio
VP
-
Wth all due respect, the rock that holed the Concordia was a SUBMERGED rock and probably wouldn't show on any typical navigation chart. So unless these charts show SUBMERGED rocks they would hardly be the rocks the ship struck.
Nowadays all known submerged rocks that are hazards to navigation are shown on naviation charts. The link is a screenshot from the chart, showing the rock or one adjacent to it that Concordia sadly hit.
VP
-
According to the Daily Telegraph (published in London)
Several passengers have said they witnessed Capt Francesco Schettino having dinner on the night of the disaster with Domnica Cemortan, a blonde Moldovan who had worked as a passenger rep on the ship and as a dancer on other cruise vessels.The captain “slowed down the ship so that he could finish dinner in peace”, just prior to sailing close to Giglio in order to perform a ‘salute’ to an old colleague on the island, prosecutors alleged in a report.
He then ordered the ship’s speed to be increased to 16 knots “despite the proximity of obstacles, the presence of shallow water, the conditions under which the ship had to manoeuvre and the night-time darkness,” prosecutors charged.
In documents filed in the Tuscan town of Grosseto, where the investigation is based, prosecutors said the nautical charts that Capt Schettino relied on for navigation were on too large a scale and therefore unreliable.
This is my interpretation of those statements, based on my examination of the electronic charts a few days after the accident and my re-examination of them in the last 30 minutes.
The detailed 1:5000 chart shows 8 rocks all marked "Dangerous Rock" and "Dangerous for Navigation". One or more of these were hit by Costa Concordia. The 1:20000 chart which may be what Captain S. was using shows one large rock in an approximate position. The 1:50000 chart also shows just one rock. Due to the large scale of a 1:20000 and 1:50000 chart, a single large rock is all that can be shown. The 1:100000 chart doesn't even show rocks off the east coast of Le Scole, and that's to be expected.
For close navigation work a detailed chart is required, and according to the prosecutors, was not being used. Which chart to use when is part of Navigation 101.....
VP
-
When might we expect an official report? Well, Italian representatives at the IMO (International Maritime Organisation) have promised to come up with a preliminary accident report in time for the IMO May meeting.
VP
-
There seems to be some confusion regarding Costa Concordia's propulsion system. I obtained the following information from Fincantieri, the builders of Costa Concordia.
Costa Concordia's propulsion was Diesel Elettrica Tradizionale, i.e. Traditional Diesel Electric. This means that she had inboard motors driving propeller shafts. She did not have azipods. She is not a Vista class ship. She is not a Spirit class ship.
She had six diesel generators in the engine rooms, total power 75.6MW.
Her two main engines (electric motors) were rated at 21MW each.
VP
-
You were wrong about the CLASS of ship, you overlooked the CONCORDIA not having AZIPODS. Maybe, also, a different system was used to power the bow thrusters than the one you outlined.
At no point did I state that Costa Concordia was a Vista class ship. At no point did I state that Concordia was driven by azipods. Thus I was not wrong. The attack on me on those points is unjustified. Re-read my posts.
I stated that in my opinion it was very likely that Costa Concordia's bow thrusters were powered from the main HV bus. If they were powered by a different system then I will a) have learnt something new and b) would want to understand why.
VP
-
You are joking arent you? There is a total difference between azimuth and standard propulsion. With Azi's you dont need rudders and the turning cycle is greatly improved upon standard propulsion.
I was referring to driving the propellers. In each case they are driven by electric motors - inboard on most ships, in the azipod on Vista class ships. That doesn't affect the points I made about powering those motors.
I'm totally aware that ships with azipods don't have rudders and have very tight turning circles. Go hard aport on the Zuiderdam at 21 knots and in one minutes 20 seconds she'll have altered course by 90 degrees. Azipods have disadvantages; if they are run at less than 30rpm, the Chief Engineer will not be happy.
VP
-
Yes, I do know that Concordia is not a Vista-class ship. As far as propulsion goes, it's not too different.... instead of power going from the two main power buses to azipods, it goes to inboard motors. For Concordia I'd expect the motors to draw somewhere between 18MW and 22MW each.
I'd be surprised if power to the bow thrusters is significantly different on Concordia to Vista-class ships. Three bow thrusters on each; not really enough power on a Vista ship but it'll do. (I'd really like 8MW to 10MW of bow thrust). Anyway - the bow thrusters on a Vista ship are 3x 1.8MW, variable pitch, probably the same on Concordia. They can be run at low power; set zero thrust, the pitch is small and they don't draw much power. But push the bow thruster lever left or right... and you will be demanding 5MW. Too much for a little genny.
Edited to add - if the Captain did use the little genny to power the bow thrusters to turn the ship so she'd ground... then bloody well done. Alas, I don't think he did....
VP
-
As promised, a picture showing how electrical power is distributed to the various electrical buses on a Vista-class cruise ship.
The six main diesel generators power the 11KV bus, XA872A and XA872B
Transformers power the 690V buses XA872C, XA872D, XA873A, XA873C from the 11KV buses. The 11KV bus cannot be powered from the 690V buses.
The EDG (Emergency Diesel Generator) at the top right only powers the 690V buses. If it's the only generator running then the 11KV bus will not be powered. It can power the main 690V buses via breakers 909, 309 and 410.
http://pictures.cruisecritic.com/showphoto.php?photo=23370
The next picture shows how the propulsion units are powered.
The azipods and bow thrusters BT1, BT2, BT3 are powered from the 11KV buses. The azipods also take power from the 690V buses for the exciters.
Each bow thruster can draw up to 1.9MW. Each azipod can draw 17.6MW.
http://pictures.cruisecritic.com/showphoto.php?photo=23371
VP
-
Other Maritime authorities on the other thread (the one that is now locked) commented some 3-4 weeks ago, since the forward thruster had its own generators and plotting the movement of the ship, that Schettino may have used the thrusters to turn the bow of the ship around.
I really don't believe that the bow thrusters (Concordia has three) would have their own generator. There is plenty of equipment on or near the bow that requires a lot of power (e.g. anchor handling, lines handling) which is going to be powered from the main high voltage bus, so why power the forward thrusters from their own generator set? Furthermore, it would require a 6MW generator set to power the bow thrusters, and that takes a lot of space. Space is at a premium on a cruise ship.
There is also the logistics of fuelling and cooling a 6MW generator, as well as exhaust gas venting.
I have some photographs which show the typical electrical configuration; I'll try and upload them so folks can see what I mean.
VP
-
From Olaf Tschimpke, president of Nabu, the Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union :“A single ocean trip on a cruise emits the same amount of pollutants as five million cars on the same route,” he said in a statement.
The last cruise I took covered about 3500 miles. My car does about 35 miles per gallon, so it would have used (3500/35)*8 = 800 pounds-weight of fuel. 5 million cars would therefore use (800*5000000)/2240=1785714 tons of fuel. Let's call it 1,700,000 tons of fuel. That's a lot of fuel.
Arcadia uses about 8 tons per hour at sea, around 2 tons or less per hour in port. Let's use the worst-case scenario, we can't get into any port so we'll just cruise around the ocean at speed so she's using 8 tons per hour for the entire 2 week cruise. That means she'll burn 8*24*14 = 2688 tons. (Which won't please the Chief Engineer, he's now got to explain to the office why the fuel cost was about 1.8 million dollars)
So does burning 2688 tons of bunker fuel really create as much pollution as 1,700,000 tons of diesel and gasoline? I agree that the exhaust from Arcadia can be smokey, especially just after engine start. On the other hand, the particulates, the visible particles, fall into the sea fairly quickly and they consist mostly of unburnt carbon which is harmless to sea life.
VP
-
AIDA are part of the Carnival group and will I'm sure conform to the same international standards as the rest of the Carnival group's fleets.
I don't know anything about TUI but I have no reason to think they would be any less environmentally aware. I've spent a lot of time in Germany both on business and on holiday, and the German population are very environmentally aware.
VP
-
I'll briefly describe the Gray, Black and Bilge water systems on Vista (Zuiderdam, Arcadia, etc) class ships. I expect that the systems on other modern cruise ships are similar.
Gray water (from showers, sinks, laundry, whirlpool, etc) is collected and filtered through a vibrating filter system to remove solids. The solids are dried and incinerated. The filtered water is passed through a low pressure reverse-osmosis systtem to remove any remaining particles. The now almost-clear water is subjected to UV treatment to sterilize it, and it can then be discharged overboard when the ship is more than 12nm from the coast and travelling at more than four knots. Time, quantity discharged, and positioned of discharged are all logged.
Black water (toilets, grey-water concentrate, galley water, etc) goes through a series of treatments. Galley water first goes through a grease trap. Toilet water first goes through a screen filter. The black water is then passed through a vibrating fine filter. There are bioreactor systems which decompose the nasty stuff in black water, there is UV treatment to sterilize the water, etc. Again any discharge of the treated water usually takes place 12nm or further from the shore, and the time, quantity discharged, and position of discharge are all logged. In fact the treated water is innocuous enough that some countries permit it to be discharged just over 3nm from their coastline.
Untreated bilge water is only pumped overboard in a dire emergency (e.g. a bloody great hole in the hull). Otherwise, the bilge water is pumped into a seperation system which consists of three settling stages. The water is then pumped into an oily water seperator system, and the result is water which is contains less than 15 parts per million of oil. Rain water on the ground in a city usually has a much higher level of oil than this.
The treated bilge water can be pumped overboard 12nm from shore - and it goes through a tamperproof oil content metering system which is monitored by cameras and digital data recorders. Again discharges of treated bilge water is logged.
VP
Edited to add: according the petition which started this thread, one large cruise ship produces as much pollution as over fifty million cars. About 50% of cars bought in Europe since 2007 are diesel - so I'll be generous and say that 10% world-wide are diesel. So this means - according to the petition - that one cruise ship produces as much pollution as five million diesel and 45 million petrol cars. Really...?????
-
Chat with the crew. Not just your room steward and the waiters, but also any sailors you see working on the ship, engineers, security staff, entertainment officers, cooks/chefs, .....
Most of them are very happy to talk with passengers, and you'll hear some great stories about life on board, life at home, interesting facts about the ship, hints and tips about upcoming ports, and you might just make a new friend or two!
VP
-
1
-
-
The water on a modern cruise is produced using sea water, heat (from the engines cooling system or hot engine exhaust gases), and a wonderful piece of technology called an evaporator.
This takes the heated sea water, (heated to over 80C, 180F), and pumps it into a chamber which is at lower than atmospheric pressure. The water boils, and the steam is collected as very pure water. The now cooler slightly saltier sea water is then pumped into another chamber which is at lower pressure, again it boils, the steam is collected, and so on. The pure water is then treated to make it taste nice (distalled water tastes horrible!), and to ensure it's safe to store and drink.
The stored drinking water is continuously tested, and several times a day samples are taken and kept.
A large ship such as the Zuiderdam or Queen Victoria can produce well over a thousand tons of fresh water per day.
VP
-
The only times I've heard "Bravo Bravo Bravo" on board, it has always been preceeded by the announcement "For practice only, for practice only" for which I'm glad!
Other codes :
Whiskey Whiskey Whiskey: The bar is open.
Yankee Yankee Yankee: The New York Harbour Pilot is now aboard.
Tango Foxtrot: Let's dance!
VP
-
2
-
Concordia News: Please Post Here
in Costa Cruises
Posted · Edited by Vampire Parrot
[/INDENT]Your conclusion appears to run counter to the use of pilots when entering and leaving harbors. Also, there is a big difference between sailing in a fjord as the intended sea lane and leaving the sea lane to "show off".
From a litigation standpoint, just put any 12 people off the street in the jury box and they will find gross negligence (or similar) by any ship's Captain who left the normal sea lane to sail close to shore for no reason except to "show boat" for people on shore or people aboard.
Throw in a couple of deaths and serious injuries and they'll find criminal liability as well.[/QUOTE]
My conclusion supports the use of pilots when entering and leaving harbours. Once the pilot is aboard, the Captain & bridge team will have a discussion with the pilot as to what the plan is and how it will be executed.
As for "sea lane" - at sea, there isn't usually a "sea lane". Places such as the Dover Straights, Gibraltar, etc. where there is a lot of traffic will have a Traffic Seperation System (TSS) in which there are mandatory traffic lanes but these are the exception rather than the rule. There are of course other places with mandatory traffic lanes, e.g. harbours.
My charts don't show a TSS or mandatory traffic lanes where the Costa Concordia hit rocks.
A properly planned and executed course can sail by an island perfectly safely. I don't know for certain if this is the case of Costa Concordia's previous sail-bys, I have no solid evidence one way or the other, but the AIS plots of previous sail-bys indicate to me that they were properly planned.
As for your comment that's a jury would find a Captain grossly negligent for "show boating" - I have to partially disagree. If the "show boating" was properly planned and executed then I say again, it's perfectly safe. I've been on ships where we have "show boated" so for example we could get a good view of Bear Island. It was wonderful - and due to proper planning and execution, there was no risk whatsoever of running aground. For example, at no point during that sail-by did our course take us in a direction where the water would be less than 50 metres deep.
But if the show-boating is a spur-of-the-moment decision by the Captain then yes, he's grossly negligent.
VP