The Concordia cruise ship accident…
…sounds much worse than I’d originally thought.
The captain’s been arrested and is being investigated for possible manslaughter and abandoning ship.
Passengers report that there was delay in launching the lifeboats, and general chaos.
Three people are reported dead and all passengers are not accounted for.
I don’t think I would ever be comfortable on a cruise ship like this – the new ones like this look so terribly top-heavy, as if a good breeze would tip it right over.
It sounds like it was horrific for the passengers – but at least they were close land, and it wasn’t stormy. So far, it seems that most people had time enough to get to a rescue boat.
Not like that awful roll-on/roll-off ferryboat sinking a couple of years ago in the Baltic – the Estonia. Gosh, it was in 1994. 900 or so on board, only about 120 saved. It happened in the middle of the night, and most people were trapped in their cabins.
Still, awful enough – especially for people expecting to have a nice holiday.
I could have done without this. We leave in six days for a cruise around Cape Horn. Smaller ship – 1100 pasengers max and not so top heavy. There are a lot of navigation issues in getting through the narrow canals leading from the Strait of Magellan up the west coast of Chile. I’m sure they use governmment pilots aboard during these transits, but the granite snags that lie in wait for the careless are a bit worrisome.
We always pay attention during the evacuation drills. You never know when the info will be needed.
This accident sounds like there were some horrendous crew errors committed. It’s a lot like an airliner crash. Very few happen, but when they do, it’s so spectacular that it grabs our attention. And usually there is some sequence of crew/mechanical mistakes that lead up to the actual accident.
I expect that all the cruise lines will be especially diligent about evacuation drills and navigation procedures beginning immediately. That’s okay with me.
J.J.: I hope you enjoy your trip, and that all goes well. I happen to like ships, although I haven’t been on one since I was a teenager. This crash was newsworthy because they are so very, very rare.
In one of the initial reports, I read the cruise line was hemmorhaging money. I’ve seen nothing since. If true, it would bring another side to the story. With the GPS navigation systems on board modern cruise ships, this should never happen.
The Telegraph quotes the captain as saying the ship hit a rock that was not supposed to be there, based on nautical charts. That’s all that’s used on this $300 million ship?
The photo showing the appalling proximity of the capsized vessel to the visible rocks tells the tale. Any midwestern walleye fisherman knows the tapering rocky ridge extends under the water.
The captain is incompetent. The crew apparently couldn’t speak anything other than their native (?Tagalog) tongue.
Folks on cruises might take a moment to consider the vessels’ captains are often not in any way the Master of the ship. Often, such captains are hired for just one cruise, or a merely for a leg thereof. Like airline pilots.
Sgt Mom, appearances are deceiving. The top side of those ships are largely aluminum and other light weight materials, while below the waterline is steel, heavy engines, fuel, ballast, etc. Top heaviness did not cause this. If you want to see something that looks top heavy, look at one of our carriers with a flight deck full of aircraft. (Note: the USN got the idea of using aluminum above the main deck of combatants. Not long after I left USS John F. Kennedy, she (sounds funny) had a collision with USS Belknap, a cruiser. The overhang on the port side of JFK’s flight deck wiped the superstructure of Belknap clean. Aluminum has its drawbacks.
This accident clearly involved a major navigational mistake. I have seen nothing on TV about the incident, but from the pictures posted on the internet, it appears the ship may have been entering port, and flat missed the channel. Amazing with GPS, etc.
JJ have you read any accounts of rounding the Horn? Brave fellow.
I have no interest in cruise ships. There just seems to be too many incident and tragedies. If I go to sea again, a carrier seems about right. I did spend a few days on a nuclear powered cruiser, before the USN abandoned them, and that was a nice ship.
In the mid-90s, a cruise ship went aground despite carrying both GPS and Loran-C. The GPS had lost the satellite signal because of a disconnected cable, and automatically entered dead reckoning mode. Unfortunately, the audible annunciator to alert the crew that the unit was now in DR (which meant the navigational data would become continually less-precise) had never been connected, and the only warning was the appearance of the three letters “SOL” (for “solution”) on the GPS screen in small type, which was never noticed. If the crew had been cross-checking the GPS position against the Loran-C, they would have realized the problem, but such cross-checking was evidently not done.
What Oldflyer said: This accident clearly involved a major navigational mistake.
In familiar and routinely sailed waters, running a 112,000 ton ship into well known rocks and capsizing it takes a special kind of failure. Not to mention the abandoning of the ship by its less than stellar captain. The entire situation is disgraceful.
After a decade at sea in a 27 year career, I’m not at all surprised that accidents like this occur, even with modern nav aids. One aspect of the story makes me believe the captain might be a pretty good sailor, though. I read one report that said he turned toward shore immediately. That was a crucial decision. He was lucky to be able to do so. Otherwise, this might have rivaled Titanic.
We would do well to await the investigation results: wild speculation — and that’s what we have — is not helpful.
I served as the Navigation Officer on a U.S. submarine. I predict that there will be a series of errors and/or equipment failures which are uncovered, and that something was missed that could’ve prevented the accident. OTOH, accidents do happen: nothing is perfectly safe.
Old Flyer, I just finished “CAPE HORN, One Man’s Dream, One Woman’s Nightmare” by Reanne Douglass. It’s a fascinating read. A husband and wife set out to sail a 42 foot sail boat around the Horn. A tale of foolishness, fear, bravery, bad luck, good luck, and survival. Gave me just a taste of what lies in those waters. For a 42 foot sail boat – mighty iffy. For a cruise liner – a bit less so. There are a few cargo ship hulls rusting away in Canal Sarmiento and other tight channels. Just a reminder to the unwary.
I did two cruises in WESPAC courtesy of Uncle Sam. Never thought I would ever pay to do a cruise. Never say never. We took a cruise in 2006 to celebrate our 50th wedding anniversary. Have been on seven since then. It has its pros and cons, but we have enjoyed all of them. We like Holland America. They sail smaller ships and cater to our crowd – the over the hill gang.
As to the stability of the ships, I remember now going to a presentation by the ship’s captain on one of our cruises and the question came up. The answer was as Old Flyer pointed out. The engines, fuel and ballast are all below the waterline and 70% of the ship’s space above is air filled rooms, which don’t weigh that much. They have powerful side thrusters and steerable main screws, so the ships today are very maneuverable. They don’t have to do the old Hong Kong pin wheel maneuever using tugs (and sometimes airplane engines) that was standard on Navy carriers in the 60s.
I’ll never forget “The Blind Horn’s Hate” by Alan Villiers. Just the thing to prepare for your trip.
I believe Bligh tried to take the Bounty west around the Horn for three months before he decided to go east past the Cape of Good Hope.
Oldflyer; I remember aluminum superstructures being a bit of a problem when presented with an Exocet missile.
I took one cruise of the Caribbean. Did not like it.
Felt like steerage (no windows, no alarm clock like a motel would have), be here at this time or that time or we leave you behind.
I could have re-upped for all that.
Rounding the horn old style.
I belong to a family of “cruisers.” Been on over a dozen Caribbean out of Ft. Lauderdale. One to Alaska, leaving out of Vancouver. One to New England out of Norfolk, VA. Two to Bermuda, also out of Norfolk.
Always had a great time. But…..you need to pick your cruise line carefully. We only take Royal Carb, Celebrity, and Princess. I would never take a booze/party cruise, on Carnival. And as a Floridian, my kids grew up going to WDW almost once a year, and we like Disney. But I would not take a Disney Cruise. Don’t need a boat full of ill-mannered “schnookums” running amok, on a cruise specifically designed to cater to them, while Mumsy and Daddy go off and do their thing.
And – I would not take a cruise on some random, unheard of, Italian or Greek line, like this one was.
Somebody mentioned that some of these ships have a “captain” for one cruise only. That has never been the case on any of the lines we’ve been on. To the contrary, the Captain tends to be somebody who has been with that particular ship its entire lifetime — in some instances, years.
Like anything else in life. Just because the traveling carnival that sets up once a year in the Church parking lot, for the annual fair/fundraiser, has ex-felon druggie types running what appear to be very rusted and unsafe rides — is not an indictment of all “theme parks.”
After seeing the hull outline in the picture of the cruise ship run aground, my thought is that it is a very stable design. Like all ships, it could capsize if forced over, but that broad, flat hull is very resistant to listing at all. It’s similar to the principle of a river barge.
Any tilt, and the center of buoyancy shifts way over in the direction of the tilt, creating a significant righting moment (roughly, the distance horizontally between the center of mass (pulled down by gravity) and the center of buoyancy (pushing up)). The lightweight superstructure and the heavy machinery keep the center of gravity low, and the broad flat hull gives that action to the center of buoyancy.
southernjames: Costa is hardly a random, unheard of line.
Excellent points CBI. There is an article linked on Drudge this morning that speaks to an explosion in the engine spaces, loss of electrical power and possible loss of the nav and steering systems–with an un-commanded turn off course.
All of this has to be taken with a certain amount of salt, since the article is in the UK Guardian. There will be many theories, and much false information published before the whole story is known.
Bye the bye. My wife postulated that they should have stopped at once. A nice thought, but anchoring a large ship in unknown waters is an iffy prospect in its own right, and drifting near a coast line is likewise.
(When I served in JFK all senior officers were required to conn the ship to an anchorage as part of the qualification process to be Command Duty Officer. The ship had to be perfectly dead in the water before the anchor was let go. (The ship lost its anchor one time when all conditions were not met–very embarrassing. Happily I wasn’t on the bridge.) The USN method of determining zero movement was to throw wood chips from the bridge wing and observe their movement relative to the ship. That was over 30 years ago, there may be other methods in use now.
One more sea story. In the late 70s the USN became enamored with hydro foils. One of the first hydro-foil patrol gun boats was commanded by an up and coming young officer, a Golden Boy. He was merrily running up a shallow river to a weapons loading pier at high speed, on the foils, when his Navigator told him he did not have a fix. Like a good Sailor he called for a stop. Unfortunately, as the speed bled off and the ship came off of the foils, it drove itself hard into the mud bank. Now any experienced Aviator would say: “When in doubt keep your speed up, do a 180 degree turn and get the hell out of there” (True, an Air Force fighter pilot might say make it a 360 degree turn.)). Conventional wisdom does not always serve well when in extremis–but if that is what is engrained, that is what you do.
It may be that one of the Azipod propulsion units failed due to the electrical problem. gCaptain’s blog speculates on this. Since Azipods are both prop and “rudder” it would account for an inability to steer out of trouble.
And rounding the Horn today. Stay safe, JJ!
“With the GPS navigation systems on board modern cruise ships, this should never happen.” (Deeka)
“Amazing with GPS, etc.” (Oldflyer)
And David Foster’s whole post right after.
Relying on new technology isn’t a bad thing–those inventions are our servants and, despite the impression, they work very reliably. (Besides, he who works in a computer programmer’s cubicle shouldn’t throw Luddite wrenches in the works.)
But the users of new tech, especially in life-critical systems, are still to be faulted for not knowing their fallbacks. A sextant will be indispensible in those rare times the GPS is out, and Morse code remains the most versatile method of long-distance communication.
No one’s going to be using them much, any more than I use a machine language disassembler instead of a high-level language debugger. However, when the satellite link fails, when the power goes out, when high-level source code isn’t available, and other situations that take one of the ideal, familiar and comfortable, you gotta know your fallbacks.
An EMP strike might, for all we know, stay the stuff of speculative dystopian fiction books; but if not, one’s knowledge of fallbacks and gracefully degraded modes of operation could spell the difference between life and death. Even without a scenario of the end of the world as we know it, fallbacks matter.
OB, 56 knot winds and fifteen foot waves – a mere zephyr in that part of the world. They don’t call those latitudes the Roaring Forties and Raging Fifties for nothing.
I guess it would be bad form to wear your life jacket at all times, but this story of the Concordia puts one in such a mood. [;>)
I guess it would be bad form to wear your life jacket at all times
I’d be clutching a rubber duck if I thought it would do any good. Never mind appearances!
I’m no expert, but from the picture i’d say all the buffet tables mistakenly got moved to one side of the boat.
Ziontruth, I don’t fault your logic at all, but I doubt there was time to get a fix after the systems failed.
Citing USN again, whenever we were in restricted waters on the carrier, there were three modes in operation at all times. The Navigator had his wizard gadgetry, but the ‘Gators quartermasters were also continually taking visual bearings on predetermined landmarks and plotting fixes; in addition my radar nav team were doing radar navigation, as a fall back. The Navigator’s positions took precedence if there was conflict, of course. The Captain would occasionally designate the radar nav as primary in good weather to keep the team sharp–it was hard to do. Yet another sea story. JFK was returning from an extended, and yet again extended, deployment. The Norfolk area was blanketed by fog, so no visual bearings. Navigator recommended to the Captain that we delay a day. The Captain replied “(expletive deleted) we will go home using radar nav”. Navigator was out of sorts, radar nav team were heroes and the crew were home that night.
I am sure that cruise ships do not have the manpower, much less the training, to enjoy that sort of redundancy.
“”I’d be clutching a rubber duck if I thought it would do any good. Never mind appearances!””
OB
Obviously there’s a market for a life vest even the world’s most interesting man could wear. Maybe a tuxedo that’s miraculously bouyant?
OK, now according to gCaptain, it appears that Costa Concordia does not have Azipods for electric propulsion. So that theory is out.
JJ, I rather doubt wearing a PFD will matter much, given the water temps at the Horn.
Don Carlos,
Good point. Maybe a wet suit and PFd would be a good call.
JJ
Make it a dry suit!
Be aware that although modern navigation can pinpoint your position to a few metres, many charts have not been updated since the days of the sextant. Charting the oceans took decades of effort by our ancestors. Navigators back then took fewer risks precisely because their equipment was less accurate. It is easy to become complacent when you know your position so precisely, but if the chart is not just as perfect, you may be standing into danger.
I was wondering if any of you folks who are obviously knowledgeable in these areas could weigh in on the tradition or expectation that the captain is the last one off the ship? A few years ago a cruise ship going around the Horn (sorry JJ) floundered and ultimately sank. As I remember the passengers were outraged that the captain and other officers left the ship quite early in the disaster leaving the passengers and rest of the crew to fend for themselves. I believe the captain and command staff were Greek. It seems that captains don’t take their responsibility seriously anymore.
Oldflyer,
I don’t know my words are at all applicable to the Concordia accident. When someone talks outside their area of expertise, they say anything that seems remotely connected…
“I am sure that cruise ships do not have the manpower, much less the training, to enjoy that sort of redundancy.”
But surely the use of fallbacks should be included in every captain’s years of training? I know Morse code is no longer required for ham radio licenses, but for military and naval office ranks surely it still is? Again, I’m not enquiring about a particular thing (sextants, Morse code)–it’s the mindset that interests me. Has the teaching of fallbacks been dropped or hasn’t it? The answer could speak volumes.
Peter Wynn,
That classic exchange from Hunt for Red October:
– Give me a stopwatch and a map, and I’ll fly the Alps in a plane with no windows.
– If the map is accurate enough.
The modern gov’t response: “Enrico Rossi, the president of the Tuscany region, visited the island on Sunday to see the rescue effort at first hand. He said he would ask the environment ministry on Monday to ensure that cruise ships adhere strictly to navigation rules in future.”
Ahh, a new layer of rules and regs that will now “ensure”. By enviros, no less! A whole new bureaocracy.
Ziontruth, your questions are certainly valid. My experience is in the USN and commercial aviation. I have no experience in commercial shipping.
Certainly with regard to the areas in which I am experienced, fallbacks, i.e., critical equipment redundancy, alternate equipment with reduced capability, and alternate procedures are all prevalent. Much of the training efforts are directed to the proper use of alternatives.
Having said that, and I don’t want to paint with too broad of a brush, the enemy in all operations is complacency. Without a disciplined command structure, the daily routine fosters a sense that every day will be routine. Several years ago a major US airliner had a crew fly into the mountains in S. America even though they had state of the art navigation equipment and it was functioning properly. Without constant drill “back up” procedures become rusty. The problem with a cruise ship is that many drills disrupt the passenger’s pleasure time, and may instill a sense of disquiet. Therefore, I suspect that they are held to a minimum. Of course, procedures for loss of primary navigation and other problems that are outside the view of the passengers could be practiced–if there were a will to do so.
Certainly, there is no substitute for frequent drills. I flew for 25 years before I experienced my first engine failure in flight. That is an event which is routinely drilled in training, so the response was routine and automatic. Sorry to say that I have experienced other events that were not drilled routinely, and my response was sometimes disappointing.
my response was sometimes disappointing
Somehow I doubt that. I bet you did just fine.
My experience in solely in sailing yachts. I started sailing before the introduction of satelite navigation, but by the time I had command of my own boat, it was commonplace and I have rarely sailed without one since. I have no chart plotter or radar, and I maintain my log and position on a paper chart in the way that I was taught. However, it is my understanding that many sailors do not do so, both yachtsmen and commercial mariners. Yachts are known to have lost due to poor lookout from ships. It is my belief that much of the essential caution that used to be engrained is being lost. This incident reminds me of the wreck of the Maria Assumpta, which broke up on rocks off Cornwall. The skipper had sailed too close to a lee shore because he saw camaramen on the cliffs. He relied on his engine to get the ship’s head through the wind, and the engine failed, and four lives were lost. However, I think we should allow due process to judge this Captain, and not trial by media.
Peter Wynn.
You’ll recall the nuclear sub ordered to make a high-speed submerged run in the Pac. Hit an undersea mountain. Captain was relieved.
I’d like to know–tried a couple of times to find out on the net–whether he was off course and hit a known obstacle, or on course with a defective chart.
In hindsight, were I he on getting the orders, I’d send my nav to higher to get updated charts and SIGN LEGIBLY for them.
The Pac’s pretty big and subs can get down to six hundred, or eight hundred feet–officially–and the number of undersea obstacles which poke up to, say, five hundred feet down is probably unknown to within, say, half.
Looks like what our civilization will look like in another 30 or 50 years.
OB to Oldflyer, “Somehow I doubt that. I bet you did just fine.”
Yes, one of the marks of an outstanding aviator is having an equal number of takeoffs and landings. [;>} Joking aside, it is one thing to deal with an emergency or alternate procedure well. It is another to do it nearly perfectly. Most aviators (the really good ones like Oldflyer) are in pursuit of perfection. In spite of having an equal number of takeoffs and landings, I never flew a flight that I didn’t think could have been flown better in some way. Balancing confidence and agressiveness with sober self analysis and vigilance against apathy are necessary components of avoiding the tragic error. The news out of Italy indicates that the Concordia’s Captain was not sufficiently concerned with that.
The accident has really reached the front pages worldwide, but the claimed theory that the captain abandoned the ship was not grounded on facts yet. We hope to see the real cause so that the event will not be repeated.