|
Re: Cruise ship on the rocks
Sorry Mr Dastardly.....But I thought THIS WAS SHOUTING!!!
I concur that as the facts appear it is looking more likely the old Captain may have a few serious questions to answer... These modern beasts ( No finger pointing ) are not built to the specifications of manufacture you would believe so...They are more akin to containers bolted to a hydrodynamic pontoon, it’s a modular construction, it is a method of constructing really big vessels to maximise share holder led profit margins...The drawback is it makes them extremely top heavy! You are so right when you say that the method of evacuation by lifeboat has not changed in many, many years, yet the advancement in constructive applications is vastly different.. As soon as water invades the hull, the ship will tend to roll and not settle. A sinking vessel cannot launch all its lifeboats therefore making the promise of everyone on board a place of safety a very moot point! This is why you will find cargo ships have their lifeboats mounted on a sliding device at the stern... I know someone who worked on a vessel called the MS Europa, a passenger cruise liner from years ago....he said that apart from basic training in emergency procedures all the staff and crew knew that if anything went wrong it would be a chaotic disaster...Long steel corridors with no lights.....Then a listing vessel??? A deathtrap! He told me once that as most of the officers were chosen for their apparent good looks and ability to charm the guests, not much trust in their ability in an emergency was the opinion... The MS Europa was sold on and I believe collided with rocks around Cadiz and broken up as scrap in the harbour....Those in the know said it was an obvious insurance job... Her new name by then was MV Costa Columbus....Managed and run by Costa Lines.......Hmmmmmm??? |
Re: Cruise ship on the rocks
Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly
(Post 9845288)
Apart from the owners already condemning his unauthorised actions, according to the TV news the black box has already confirmed the ship was miles off course and in a well known dangerous location 150mtrs offshore.
According to some ship construction expert on TV, cruise ships are not built to the same standards as ocean going liners such as the Queen Mary. They don't have reinforced strengthened hulls and are therefore very easily ripped open. Let's wait until after the official investigation, and not be armchair experts! |
Re: Cruise ship on the rocks
Originally Posted by Saxy
(Post 9845310)
As I said, he may have been there because he was trying to beach the ship after a collision further out.
Let's wait until after the official investigation, and not be armchair experts! He did not even have authorisation to pass by that side of the island His official authorised route was several miles away off the opposite side of the island ! While I am not one for lynch mob justice, you really do appear to be trying to defend the indefensible in this case |
Re: Cruise ship on the rocks
Yes Carnival corp. are saying the Captain was off course. Not sure why, the Jury is out:)
|
Re: Cruise ship on the rocks
Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly
(Post 9845322)
That was the position where the actual collision took place.
He did not even have authorisation to pass by that side of the island His official authorised route was several miles away off the opposite side of the island ! While I am not one for lynch mob justice, you really do appear to be trying to defend the indefensible in this case INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! Yesterday the stupid reporter was talking about the fact that the rescuers were worried about the tide coming in and causing problems by lifting the ship. I don't think so, the Med. is virtually tideless, certainly not enough to do that. |
Re: Cruise ship on the rocks
According to the bloke from Sky who is out there it will be broke up into manageable pieces and scrapped:unsure:
Aside from the disaster, I hate those large ships, not like cruising at all. Prefer one with under a 1000 pax. Exception is QM2 which never seems crowded and is a true liner. |
Re: Cruise ship on the rocks
Originally Posted by Saxy
(Post 9845362)
I am not gullible enough to believe everything I hear from TV presenters, trying to spice up the story!!!! Until it is official that he was in the wrong, I give him the benefit of the doubt.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! Yesterday the stupid reporter was talking about the fact that the rescuers were worried about the tide coming in and causing problems by lifting the ship. I don't think so, the Med. is virtually tideless, certainly not enough to do that. As for your other nonsensical statement, the ship actually moved this morning and rescue efforts were suspended until it stabilised again. It is said to be perched on a narrow rocky ledge and any further disturbance from sea conditions could cause it to slip a little further and drop off the ledge into deep water. According to the divers it is a nightmare trying to fully search a ship of that size with so many compartments and cabins and a constant danger of getting trapped themselves, should it move any further. |
Re: Cruise ship on the rocks
Originally Posted by The Beast
(Post 9845070)
Modern day manufactured and built cruise liners are extremely top heavy, without the huge power pumped to the stabilizing systems they could capsize if you sneezed at them.
|
Re: Cruise ship on the rocks
Originally Posted by Fredbargate
(Post 9845423)
Spherical objects
Ummm, the multi quote thingy doesn't work??? |
Re: Cruise ship on the rocks
Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly
(Post 9845412)
I am not referring to gullible TV reporters, but a clearly worded statement from the owners saying he had absolutely no authorisation to do as he did or to be where he was.
As for your other nonsensical statement, the ship actually moved this morning and rescue efforts were suspended until it stabilised again. It is said to be perched on a narrow rocky ledge and any further disturbance from sea conditions could cause it to slip a little further and drop off the ledge into deep water. According to the divers it is a nightmare trying to fully search a ship of that size with so many compartments and cabins and a constant danger of getting trapped themselves, should it move any further. No1. - I said nothing about gullible TV reporters. What I said was, I wasn't gullible enough to believe everything I hear from TV presenters. No2. - My nonsensical statement, as you call it, said that there isn't enough rise and fall in the tide to move the ship, and there isn't. The ship moved because of the sea becoming rougher.! The owners of course are going to blame the captain, and again as I said, there may have been a reason why he was off course. We don't know, and until we do it is wrong for us to pass judgement. |
Re: Cruise ship on the rocks
Originally Posted by Fredbargate
(Post 9845423)
Spherical objects
If the Captain had some feasible and logical reason to be where he was, he's mighty slow in coming forward with it. Instead he appears to be insisting that the rocks had no business to be where they were, in addition to his other mysterious statement that his vessel was actually going sideways when he ran into them. :confused: I think he is the only one who has reason to worry about spherical objects at the moment, as he appears to be hanging onto his own by little more than a thread at present,..... but there again where he is likely going they might not be in major demand. :ohmy: :blink: |
Re: Cruise ship on the rocks
Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly
(Post 9845784)
:blink:
If the Captain had some feasible and logical reason to be where he was, he's mighty slow in coming forward with it. Instead he appears to be insisting that the rocks had no business to be where they were, in addition to his other mysterious statement that his vessel was actually going sideways when he ran into them. :confused: I think he is the only one who has reason to worry about spherical objects at the moment, as he appears to be hanging onto his own by little more than a thread at present,..... but there again where he is likely going they might not be in major demand. :ohmy: :blink: The fact is we don't know. |
Re: Cruise ship on the rocks
Originally Posted by Saxy
(Post 9846187)
Just look at what we can see. The ship has a gaping hole and what appears to be a rock, in her port side, yet she is listing to starboard. This suggests extensive damage to that side. When and where did that happen?
. Any yachtsman that has ever deliberately dried out a boat will tell you that. You are confusing the difference between a holed boat that is sinking in deep water and one that has run aground. |
Re: Cruise ship on the rocks
Number of missing upped to 29,...seems like they must still be on the boat after all.....not so good.
State of emergency declared,..meaning a dip into EU funds for whatever is needed to clean up any mess. To be hoped they get the fuel safely pumped out or we'll all be paying for the cock-up. Wonder if anyone saw the readout of the ships course demonstrated by the Lloyds of Londons marine satellite tracking system ? It's quite surprising not only how far off the authorised course the vessel was, but also just how very close to the shore it came even before striking the rocks. It appeared to be already attempting to veer back seawards slightly as though spotting the error, just before the collision, possibly accounting for the fatal sideswipe into the rocks which the Captain seemed to be trying to explain in his interview. It then continued on straight on past the port entrance, possibly initially unaware of just how serious the damage was. Then followed a sharp left u-turn back towards the port, which could possibly account for the way it was listing as it reached its final resting point. It's probably even more difficult to understand the reason for such a crazy close inshore diversion/cruise-by, considering it was being attempted during the hours of darkness. |
Re: Cruise ship on the rocks
Originally Posted by Fred James
(Post 9846247)
It's lying that way because of the slope of the seabed - it will always lie "downhill".
Any yachtsman that has ever deliberately dried out a boat will tell you that. You are confusing the difference between a holed boat that is sinking in deep water and one that has run aground. This is quite funny 'cos I just happen to be a 'Yachty'. I have a Hunter sailing cruiser that I keep at Keylane boatyard in Portsmouth Harbour. We go back every year (weather permitting) and either pop across to Cherbourg and do the Normandy coast, or round the corner to the Channel Islands (my wife is a Yachtmaster). So I know that what you have said is a load of rubbish! The only type of boats that can 'take the ground' or dry out as you put it are 'bilge keelers' (a keel on each side), or 'lifting keelers' (self explanatory). The other type of boat is a 'fin keel' ( keel in the center of the boat), and unless supported either side when they dry out, are in big trouble, because the weight of the boat acting on the keel as she goes over, will more than likely break it! Now a bilge keel, if drying out on a slope, the keel closest to shore touches first and the boat heels over away from the shore. A lifting keel has a flat bottom when the keel is raised, and again will follow the slope down away from shore. A fin keel is the only one that could finish up in the situation you describe, and that is a 50/50 chance which way she is going to go. The Costa Concordia is a flat bottom ship and will act in the same way as a lifting keeler i.e. sit down with her bottom following the slope of the sea bed, heeling away from the shore. Unless of course the sea bed slopes up going away from shore :eek: |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 1:34 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.