Concordia News: Please Post Here

[MorganMars]

Full Investigative Report from the Italian Ministry of Infrastructure & Transport (MIT)

http://www.safety4sea.com/images/media/pdf/Costa_Concordia_-_Full_Investigation_Report.pdf

[cruiserfanfromct]

Full Investigative Report from the Italian Ministry of Infrastructure & Transport (MIT)

http://www.safety4sea.com/images/media/pdf/Costa_Concordia_-_Full_Investigation_Report.pdf

 

WOW! Thanks for this -- interesting read although the translation is a bit rough around the edges. 176 pages point primarily to master error and lackadaisical officers. The details corroborate what most of us have been saying all along. Master's got some big time 'splaining to do if he's still bidding to get his job back (with back pay:eek:). Instead, it's beginning to sound like he'll get 20 years at the Ironbar Hotel with gangstas as roomies.

[LocoLoco1]

cruiserfanfromCT

I find it more than troubling that the CONCORDIA capsized some time AFTER nearly all the people were off, nowhere near the first point of impact with rocks. An excellent Marine Safety consultant at http://www.heiwaco.tripod.com and other knowledgable experts smell a cover-up as regards Mega-ship design/ballasting. An unfit Capt. and a poorly designed vessel combined for tragedy? I think so. What a mess. Locomotiveman Tom

[Uniall]

Full Investigative Report from the Italian Ministry of Infrastructure & Transport (MIT)

 

http://www.safety4sea.com/images/media/pdf/Costa_Concordia_-_Full_Investigation_Report.pdf

 

WOW! Thanks for this -- interesting read although the translation is a bit rough around the edges. 176 pages point primarily to master error and lackadaisical officers. The details corroborate what most of us have been saying all along. Master's got some big time 'splaining to do if he's still bidding to get his job back (with back pay:eek:). Instead, it's beginning to sound like he'll get 20 years at the Ironbar Hotel with gangstas as roomies.

 

Morgan & Cruiserfan

 

Great report. I noticed that a great deal of the information was dedicated to the "Stability of Ship". They should have had a huge section on the "Stability of the Captain"....:D

[chengkp75]

cruiserfanfromCT

I find it more than troubling that the CONCORDIA capsized some time AFTER nearly all the people were off, nowhere near the first point of impact with rocks. An excellent Marine Safety consultant at http://www.heiwaco.tripod.com and other knowledgable experts smell a cover-up as regards Mega-ship design/ballasting. An unfit Capt. and a poorly designed vessel combined for tragedy? I think so. What a mess. Locomotiveman Tom

 

"But why did it capsize?" you ask. Did you read the report? It states that the Concordia, like nearly every cruise ship afloat is a "two compartment" ship, meaning that if any two adjacent compartments flood, the ship will stay afloat, but if 3 adjacent compartments flood, there is nothing that will save her. The Concordia breached and flooded 5 adjacent compartments. She was going to sink no matter what anyone did.

 

Why did she capsize? Again, its in the report, though this is tougher for non-seafarers to understand. Its called "free surface". When a space in a ship floods, the water is "free" to slosh back and forth. If the ship takes a small list to one side (for instance from the wind), the water will slosh to the "low" side. This water has weight, and this weight keeps the low side down, so that as more water enters the compartment, it tends to fill this low side, putting more weight on that side, causing the ship to list more, which moves more water to that side, more weight, ad infinitum. The ship will eventually roll over.

 

Free surface is why we try to keep ballast tanks on ships or cargo tanks on oil tankers either empty or full, because when a tank is full, there is no room for the liquid to slosh back and forth, so no free surface effect.

 

There's no cover up here, its all on Schettino and his failure to understand the clear notifications that the engineering department gave him about the number of compartments that were flooding, and his failure to properly notify the Costa shore staff and Italian CG of the seriousness of the situation.

 

Poor ship design? If that's the case, then nearly every cruise ship afloat, whether mega-ship or not, is poorly designed. Some of the recommendations in the report would improve safety of the vessel, and many have been implemented for new builds. Some would be so costly to retrofit, or even implement on new builds that cruise ticket prices would skyrocket (double hull in machinery spaces.

 

As the board notes, breaching 5 compartments, and down-flooding of a 6th, is a highly unusual incident, and in fact even more of a catastrophic hull breach than what brought the Titanic down.

[Tonka's Skipper]

"But why did it capsize?" you ask. Did you read the report? It states that the Concordia, like nearly every cruise ship afloat is a "two compartment" ship, meaning that if any two adjacent compartments flood, the ship will stay afloat, but if 3 adjacent compartments flood, there is nothing that will save her. The Concordia breached and flooded 5 adjacent compartments. She was going to sink no matter what anyone did.

 

Why did she capsize? Again, its in the report, though this is tougher for non-seafarers to understand. Its called "free surface". When a space in a ship floods, the water is "free" to slosh back and forth. If the ship takes a small list to one side (for instance from the wind), the water will slosh to the "low" side. This water has weight, and this weight keeps the low side down, so that as more water enters the compartment, it tends to fill this low side, putting more weight on that side, causing the ship to list more, which moves more water to that side, more weight, ad infinitum. The ship will eventually roll over.

 

Free surface is why we try to keep ballast tanks on ships or cargo tanks on oil tankers either empty or full, because when a tank is full, there is no room for the liquid to slosh back and forth, so no free surface effect.

 

There's no cover up here, its all on Schettino and his failure to understand the clear notifications that the engineering department gave him about the number of compartments that were flooding, and his failure to properly notify the Costa shore staff and Italian CG of the seriousness of the situation.

 

Poor ship design? If that's the case, then nearly every cruise ship afloat, whether mega-ship or not, is poorly designed. Some of the recommendations in the report would improve safety of the vessel, and many have been implemented for new builds. Some would be so costly to retrofit, or even implement on new builds that cruise ticket prices would skyrocket (double hull in machinery spaces.

 

As the board notes, breaching 5 compartments, and down-flooding of a 6th, is a highly unusual incident, and in fact even more of a catastrophic hull breach than what brought the Titanic down.

 

 

All correct and well put.

 

However I think the issue is she never capsized, capsized means she rolled over beyond 90 degree. The Concordia layed on the beach and as the water entered, listed more to STBD, settling on the rocks/sand.

 

AKK

[chengkp75]

All correct and well put.

 

However I think the issue is she never capsized' date=' capsized means she rolled over beyond 90 degree. The Concordia layed on the beach and as the water entered, listed more to STBD, settling on the rocks/sand.

 

AKK[/quote']

 

I was going to correct that technicality, but figured I had spouted enough.:)

[cruiserfanfromct]

cruiserfanfromCT

I find it more than troubling that the CONCORDIA capsized some time AFTER nearly all the people were off, nowhere near the first point of impact with rocks. An excellent Marine Safety consultant at www.heiwaco.tripod.com and other knowledgable experts smell a cover-up as regards Mega-ship design/ballasting. An unfit Capt. and a poorly designed vessel combined for tragedy? I think so. What a mess. Locomotiveman Tom

 

Hey locomotiveman Tom - welcome to the thread!

 

What I find most troubling is that just this past Friday, Schettino again told a court that his actions saved the lives of more than 4,000 people and requested a new investigation. He had the unmitigated chutzpah to state, "My years of experience surely led to the evacuation of over 4,000 people. Thus is was not the hand of the good Lord or a miracle".

 

If I read the MIT report correctly, it clearly states that the ship merely drifted in towards Giglio and it sure didn't end up there by any manuever the captain did or didn't do as the ship became unmanueverable shortly after impact.

 

Capsize? The only sure thing is Schettino's arguments do not hold any water (pun intended) and he's sure to capsize once the prosecutor gets a hold of him.

Edited May 29, 2013 by cruiserfanfromct

[sidari]

Tonka ..... going back to the coastguard video it shows Concordia on its side the Bow Thrusters can clearly be seen out of the water so the ship at that point is clearly on its side, later it rolled back to the position it is in now.

 

While i understand the "free surface" movement of water due to my previous job maybe one of you could explain why the ship began to sink Stern first on the Starboard side given that the hole is on the Port side? I have not yet had time to read the report.

 

Surely if as claimed all the watertight doors were open the free surface movement of water would have traveled the length of the ship and not just to the Stern Starboard side! assuming of course that the ship was not sat Bow higher than the Stern.The only other conclusion can be that the watertight doors forward of the breach were closed.

Edited May 29, 2013 by sidari

[chengkp75]

Tonka ..... going back to the coastguard video it shows Concordia on its side the Bow Thrusters can clearly be seen out of the water so the ship at that point is clearly on its side, later it rolled back to the position it is in now.

 

While i understand the "free surface" movement of water due to my previous job maybe one of you could explain why the ship began to sink Stern first on the Starboard side given that the hole is on the Port side? I have not yet had time to read the report.

 

Surely if as claimed all the watertight doors were open the free surface movement of water would have traveled the length of the ship and not just to the Stern Starboard side! assuming of course that the ship was not sat Bow higher than the Stern.The only other conclusion can be that the watertight doors forward of the breach were closed.

 

Because all of the compartments that were breached were aft, the water and weight started filling here, which submerged the aft end more. Free surface affects a ship's stability in the transverse direction many times more than in the longitudinal direction, simply because the ship is many times longer than it is wide.

 

The original heel to port was of course caused by the breach being on the port side, which could not be corrected by the anti-heeling pumps due to the black-out. Once the ship drifted around 180* and was headed back to shore, the wind was on the port side, and the wind induced heel was to starboard. The wind on the huge side of the ship heeled her slightly to starboard, and the free surface did the rest, as all the water flowed to starboard and the center of gravity shifted to starboard. By this time she had so much water in her, that the heel continued to the point where the breach was no longer in the water, but the center of gravity had shifted so much due to the water shifting to starboard that the ship's natural position was now 90* on its starboard side.

 

Significantly, the grounding on the starboard side where she finally came to rest, increased the effect of rolling over to starboard. The ship could not sink any further on that side, and yet the center of bouyancy, in the forward compartments, would be centerline or to port, so that would force the port side higher, rolling the ship further to starboard.

[Tonka's Skipper]

I was going to correct that technicality, but figured I had spouted enough.:)

 

 

Being sailors, we all spout off all the time;)

[Tonka's Skipper]

Because all of the compartments that were breached were aft, the water and weight started filling here, which submerged the aft end more. Free surface affects a ship's stability in the transverse direction many times more than in the longitudinal direction, simply because the ship is many times longer than it is wide.

 

The original heel to port was of course caused by the breach being on the port side, which could not be corrected by the anti-heeling pumps due to the black-out. Once the ship drifted around 180* and was headed back to shore, the wind was on the port side, and the wind induced heel was to starboard. The wind on the huge side of the ship heeled her slightly to starboard, and the free surface did the rest, as all the water flowed to starboard and the center of gravity shifted to starboard. By this time she had so much water in her, that the heel continued to the point where the breach was no longer in the water, but the center of gravity had shifted so much due to the water shifting to starboard that the ship's natural position was now 90* on its starboard side.

 

Significantly, the grounding on the starboard side where she finally came to rest, increased the effect of rolling over to starboard. The ship could not sink any further on that side, and yet the center of bouyancy, in the forward compartments, would be centerline or to port, so that would force the port side higher, rolling the ship further to starboard.

 

You said it clearer that I would have!

 

AKK

[sidari]

Cheng ... Thanks or that info ..... :)

[CTH]

Came across a YouTube video,

showing a template being lifted off a barge yesterday (Tuesday) by Micoperi 30's fixed crane, & also the supply vessel Narvik arriving with another curved reinforcement plate presumably to cover more of the gash in C.C.'s hull. I think the template is for the final underwater platform no. 3, but could be wrong, might be for platform 2.

 

Not overly exciting, 14 mins long, skipped through some of it, not much else for us to see this week!...

[Ken711]

Came across a YouTube video,

showing a template being lifted off a barge yesterday (Tuesday) by Micoperi 30's fixed crane, & also the supply vessel Narvik arriving with another curved reinforcement plate presumably to cover more of the gash in C.C.'s hull. I think the template is for the final underwater platform no. 3, but could be wrong, might be for platform 2.

 

Not overly exciting, 14 mins long, skipped through some of it, not much else for us to see this week!...

 

Drilling for platform 2 is completed so it must be for platform 3.

[Uniall]

Here's my Cruise Report on my my recent Trans Atlantic Crossing on NCL's Star which was just published by CruiseCritic.com

 

http://www.cruisecritic.com/memberreviews/memberreview.cfm?EntryID=220656

 

 

..

[LocoLoco1]

Fortunately, the Gods and wind direction brought the drifting CONCORDIA near a shoreline, as the Captainsactions contradict his claims he sought an intentional grounding 'to save lives'. Requests for dropping anchors, Inclinometer readings and delay in calling for abandoning ship indicate a Capt not capable of handling a crisis situation. The Reports and Diagrams on pages 66 and 91are damning. I must say, however, the Report's narrative about design of critical areas below decks not being segregated/sequestered is troubling to not only me. I forsee changes in design of such vessels, possibly retro-fitting existing vessels to afford Aux.Power and Electical Panels to maintain their intregrity when pumps are needed to prevented severelisting and ballast transfer. As page127 directly states regarding the final flooding, "..The later situation causes a stability inadequacy and the ship's capsizing." To the casual observer such as I, that indicates attention is needed in rethinking the design of these Behemoths of the Sea that have so many thousands aboard. Locomotiveman Tom

[chengkp75]

Fortunately, the Gods and wind direction brought the drifting CONCORDIA near a shoreline, as the Captainsactions contradict his claims he sought an intentional grounding 'to save lives'. Requests for dropping anchors, Inclinometer readings and delay in calling for abandoning ship indicate a Capt not capable of handling a crisis situation. The Reports and Diagrams on pages 66 and 91are damning. I must say, however, the Report's narrative about design of critical areas below decks not being segregated/sequestered is troubling to not only me. I forsee changes in design of such vessels, possibly retro-fitting existing vessels to afford Aux.Power and Electical Panels to maintain their intregrity when pumps are needed to prevented severelisting and ballast transfer. As page127 directly states regarding the final flooding, "..The later situation causes a stability inadequacy and the ship's capsizing." To the casual observer such as I, that indicates attention is needed in rethinking the design of these Behemoths of the Sea that have so many thousands aboard. Locomotiveman Tom

 

I couldn't agree more that even with the caveat that the report was not designed to cast blame, it all falls strongly on the Captain and the Deck Officers.

 

As the report says, many of the design recommendations that they made have already been adopted in the "Safe Return to Port" regulations that IMO adopted for any cruise ship built after 2011. However, retrofitting older ships would just not be economical. What worries me about watertight segregation is that on a two compartment ship, apparently all watertight doors below the subdivision deck were allowed to be left open while the vessel was at sea, and in particular, when the vessel was "maneuvering" (operating in confined waters or near to land), where groundings are more likely. Even if the ship is fitted with a system where a high bilge alarm (indicative of flooding) would automatically close the watertight doors for that space, let's face it, automation can fail. The cruise ships I have worked on as Chief Engineer, had 14 watertight compartments in the engine room, and hence 13 watertight doors. While the vessel was at sea, we were only allowed to keep the one door between the two engine rooms open, and the engineers who made routine tours of all the engine compartments had to open and close the doors as they passed through. While "maneuvering", even this one door had to remain closed except for when someone was passing through.

 

The "Safe Return" requirements would take what the Concordia has: one compartment with propulsion electric motors, one compartment with half of the diesel generators, and one compartment with the other diesel generators, and most probably change this to two compartments, each with an electric propulsion motor, and half the diesel generators. On the Concordia, flooding of the propulsion motor compartment would remove all propulsion, and flooding of either engine room would reduce propulsion by half. In the new design, even having only two compartments, loss of either compartment would not cause the vessel to lose propulsion, but would only reduce it by half.

 

Moving switchboard rooms to be above the subdivision deck is another provision of the Safe Return design, but one that would not be possible on older ships.

 

You will notice from the report that bilge pumps were located in compartments 5 and 8 (there was probably another one, as well). With two intervening compartments, it was extremely unlikely that both would be involved in the flooding, but that is what happened. I don't recall seeing which bilge pump was powered by the emergency generator, but given that the emergency generator was not working properly makes that a moot question. Regardless, the bilge pumps, even if all had been working, would not have been able to keep up with the inflow from that size breach. Even using the emergency bilge suctions for the main cooling water pumps (which are larger than the bilge pumps, and would take suction from the bilges and run it through the cooling system and overboard) would probably only have slowed the inflow.

 

As I've stated before, with a two compartment ship, and 5 adjacent compartments breached, there was literally nothing on earth that was going to keep the Concordia afloat. I remember seeing the cell phone video of the bridge, with an English translation, and distinctly heard Schettino repeatedly asking whether two or three compartments were flooding, and saying that if it was only two, they were okay, but if it was three, there was nothing to do. At that time, he should have had the passengers mustered and ready to go, and once he had confirmation of the third compartment breach, he should have gotten everyone but the deck and engine crews off the ship.

 

Modern cruise ships are extremely safe. Will there be major redesigns of existing ships because of this disaster? Probably not. This was one for the record book, and she was doomed as soon as she hit the rock. Will newer ships have improvements? They already have.

[sidari]

Cheng .... As you may know MSC have the Safe return on their newer ships and i think they may have been one of if not the First cruise line to add this feature to their ships, they are also looking at retro fitting the ones that do not have it being as the ships are not so old.

 

Carnival appear to be retro fitting their newer ships.

 

I personally still think that areas around motive power etc should be Double hulled regardless of the cost despite the fact that it may well increase prices in the short term, after all total loss is more costly than a partial loss of income and passengers and Safety should be the number one priority.

 

I recall our visit to the bridge of the Ruby Princess where a question was asked regarding the watertight doors while at sea, the Captain told us that they sail with them closed and we were shown the operating panel that showed them closed.

 

It was said at the time of the Concordia accident that the doors were all open! does the report address this as being true or were some of them closed? also with the lack of water depth under the hull of Concordia and the steepness of the rock against which it came to rest how much did this also affect the stability ?

[cruiserfanfromct]

Has anyone heard of a proposed "plan B"? According to several recent news articles in Italy, Franco Porcellacchia, vice president of refits for Carnival Corporation unveiled an alternate plan to bring in the Dockwise Vanguard to tow Concordia to Turkey where it would be dismantled.

 

Apologies if this has already been discussed here.

 

http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/impresa-e-territori/2013-05-27/foto-151958.shtml?uuid=AbtU3hzH

 

http://it.ibtimes.com/articles/49596/20130528/costa-concordia-crociera-naufragio-isola-del-giglio-vanguard-last-minute.htm

 

http://www.net1news.org/cronaca/arriva-vanguard-gigante-dei-mari-pu%C3%B2-recuperare-concordia.html

[chengkp75]

Cheng .... As you may know MSC have the Safe return on their newer ships and i think they may have been one of if not the First cruise line to add this feature to their ships, they are also looking at retro fitting the ones that do not have it being as the ships are not so old.

 

Carnival appear to be retro fitting their newer ships.

 

I personally still think that areas around motive power etc should be Double hulled regardless of the cost despite the fact that it may well increase prices in the short term, after all total loss is more costly than a partial loss of income and passengers and Safety should be the number one priority.

 

I recall our visit to the bridge of the Ruby Princess where a question was asked regarding the watertight doors while at sea, the Captain told us that they sail with them closed and we were shown the operating panel that showed them closed.

 

It was said at the time of the Concordia accident that the doors were all open! does the report address this as being true or were some of them closed? also with the lack of water depth under the hull of Concordia and the steepness of the rock against which it came to rest how much did this also affect the stability ?

 

Many other ships have the Safe Return, like the NCL Breakaway, and others built since 2011. There is no way to retrofit the Safe Return to older ships, as this would require moving major equipment around the engine spaces, and the general arrangement of the propulsion system. Also, double hulling is not feasible, as the engine rooms are quite full, and there is no space to take the required 2 meters of space out of the engine rooms to make the double hull. This is not a cost issue, but one that is an actual physical improbability. In actual fact, they are almost all double bottom, in that there are ballast tanks, bilge tanks, oil tanks, etc under the engine rooms.

 

Carnivals retrofitting still does not meet the Safe Return criteria, they are just working to reroute the electrical cabling from the forward engine room, so that it does not pass through the trunking for the aft engine room, which is what causes the total loss of power when only one engine room catches fire.

 

Some of the watertight doors were closed, but many were found open. This is a condemnation of the management system at Costa, and the policies onboard the Concordia, rather than the equipment.

 

As I said earlier, the grounding worsened the heeling to starboard, but the rock is what kept the ship from going over further.

[sidari]

Cheng .... 2 Metres is not a lot in one sense and surely cruise ships could be made that much wider to allow for a Double hull, failing that in this modern age where car manufacturers are making engines smaller with less cylinders and more horsepower again the Marine industry with the will could also achieve this if they are against a Double hull cruise ship.

[chengkp75]

Cheng .... 2 Metres is not a lot in one sense and surely cruise ships could be made that much wider to allow for a Double hull, failing that in this modern age where car manufacturers are making engines smaller with less cylinders and more horsepower again the Marine industry with the will could also achieve this if they are against a Double hull cruise ship.

 

This could be done with new build ships, but widening a ship by 4 meters (2 each side) would just not make any financial sense. If that was a requirement, the lines would just scrap the ships and build new.

 

The power plants aboard ships are extremely power efficient. Nearly 80% of the energy in a gallon of fuel is converted to work. Most cars don't come anywhere near that. The biggest problem facing marine engine manufacturers these days are the new and upcoming emissions controls. This is forcing them to design engines that burn cleaner fuel, but fuel that has less energy per gallon than the older higher sulfur fuel, so the problem becomes one of stuffing MORE equipment into the engine rooms to meet emission requirements.

 

Remember, that moving a 10-12MW diesel generator 2 meters inboard is no small thing. This beast weighs 7-10 tons, and requires significant structure below it to keep it in place. This structure is not only in the engine room, but in the double bottom tanks below. Rearranging this structure will affect the stability of the vessel, it's normal harmonic vibration signature, and the stress on the hull structure allowed. It would basically mean a near redesign of the vessel.

 

I'm with you about the value of the Safe Return regulations, particularly as the ships continue to get larger, but to require this to be retrofitted to older ships just isn't going to happen. Look at the auto industry. When a simple idea like the seat belt was discovered to save untold lives, and all new cars were required to have them, were older cars required to have them? Nope. And there were kits to outfit your car with seat belts at the time, and were relatively cheap.

[Ken711]

Has anyone heard of a proposed "plan B"? According to several recent news articles in Italy, Franco Porcellacchia, vice president of refits for Carnival Corporation unveiled an alternate plan to bring in the Dockwise Vanguard to tow Concordia to Turkey where it would be dismantled.

 

Apologies if this has already been discussed here.

 

http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/impresa-e-territori/2013-05-27/foto-151958.shtml?uuid=AbtU3hzH

 

http://it.ibtimes.com/articles/49596/20130528/costa-concordia-crociera-naufragio-isola-del-giglio-vanguard-last-minute.htm

 

http://www.net1news.org/cronaca/arriva-vanguard-gigante-dei-mari-pu%C3%B2-recuperare-concordia.html

 

Doesn't seem like that would be a feasible Plan B. If worst case the ship breaks apart during the parbuckling phase, I suspect it will be broken up on site and salvaged in pieces.

[sidari]

Cheng ... Thanks for the further info, i was thinking of New builds with regard to widening the ships because as you say it would not make financial sense to try to do it to an older ship.

 

The emissions problem is a big issue certainly where the like of Alaska is concerned, despite the amount of Co2 that Concrete manufacturing plants put out nothing is done to curtail it and cruise ships Co2 output compared is minimal so it makes you wonder just who is lining their pockets financially by forcing the issue of cleaner fuel!