Monday, January 16, 2012

I don't know a lot about cruise ships

But I do know that they have to have some compartmentalization.

Right? Most modern ships -especially those designed for passengers almost have to have safety at the top of their list.
-If not because they're concerned about passengers good health, but at least so they don't lose the company to lawsuits.
So, what I'm wondering is why the Capt. didn't counterflood to keep the ship upright so as to be able to launch his life boats?


  1. I don't think it was flooding that caused the ship to go over on its size. I think it was hard bottom that caused it. I think that the ship settled on to the bottom and simply fell over.

    I'm not privy to any details, but that's what it looked like.

  2. This article has a complaint from a ship's master's union representative that complains that tour companies are putting profits above safety by stacking ships with too many decks, making them top-heavy and prone to capsize; tour companies dispute this.

    Expecting US Navy-standard damage control from a civilian cruise ship company is unrealistic, IMO.

  3. I know they're not compartmentalized like a ship of the line, but still they ought to have internal pumps to transfer the water.

    Sean- the way I understood it- they capt was heading to port after he hit the rock and it was already listing too bad to launch life boats.

  4. @KurtP: It's hard to say now as the stories are conflicting. I have a hard time believing that the ship had much time between hitting the rock and going aground hard. I suspect that the Officer of the Deck just put it aground to keep it above the water. We just have to wait until whatever passes for the NTSB tells us what happened.

    What bothers me is the panic and lack of leadership in the ship's evacuation. Running aground doesn't kill people. Most times bouncing off bulkheads doesn't kill people. Panic kills people. Panic is a leadership issue. When you sign on as a Captain, you are signing on to be the last man off. You are signing up in advance to be the person that the passengers will later tell stories about. Apparently this guy was off the ship before the passengers.

  5. I think, from the photos, the tear in the hull breached so many compartments that the flooding was sudden and extreme.

  6. Yeah, I only saw that boulder embedded in the hull this morning.

  7. Good point about the possibility that the bottom of the ship came up on hard sea-bottom, settled, and tipped. As aircraft pilots are told to show caution when approaching the edges of the air (i.e. the land, water and outer space) sailors on very large ships should think twice before approaching the edges of the Sea.
    Secondly, at another site a commenter suggested that the speed of the ship was to fast. The wake and turbulence from the ships passage rebounded from the rocky coast on the starboard side, hitting the keel on that side and exerting a force pushing the keel to port and the top heavy superstructure to starboard.

    Lastly there was a report that the Captain dropped his anchors, on one side only, to slow down and turn. Since no heavy lines can be seen on the damaged port side did this idiot drop his starboard anchors that close to land and pull his ship over?

    Just as the Titanic counterflooded in 1912 specifically to maintain a level attitude for the launching of the lifeboats, so that would/should have been what The Concordia's officers did. But I have read no reports that any counter flooding was done. Did I miss something?
    But if no counter flooding was done, then why did the ship capsize on the OTHER side unless one of these scenarios contributed.