concordia nat geo now

LiamoSail

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

You got it in a nutshell, as I understand it.

The winds were 24mph which wasn't great on it's own but the ship was sitting just 26ft deep in the water and 100ft above the waves x 1,000ft long to catch the wind.

What I find extrordinary is that the 100,000 tonnes+ weight was pushed over in the opposite direction by those winds. The water already flooded in must have helped with this by flooding new areas as the ship was being righted by the winds.

The really frightening thing is that if there were no winds, the ship would have sank when the engines failed at a mile or so out to sea in much deeper water. With the ineptitude shown by the overall leadership on the ship in this case that would certainly have lead to hundreds if not thousands of lives being lost.

Nature came to the rescue, and to better effect than the captain of the liner did.

Is this speculation or was it reported by any sort of credible source?

Firstly, she struck the rock on her port side while on a Northerly heading, and later grounded, listing heavily to starboard on a SW'ly heading. I'd imagine the Capt. did what he could to bring her around like that to put her aground in that position

Secondly, given she was listed to port initially, turning to port would have been quiet difficult (as your turning circle is increased if turning towards the side you're listing to). Its likely that in the process of swinging the ship, the free surface put her over to starboard

Your point about the wind seems to be that while the ship was on a northerly heading and listing to port, that the wind pushed her over to starboard. For that to happen, the wind would have had to be westerly. If the wind were westerly, how would it have brought her back on to the island? A westerly wind would push her east towards the main land. In any case, it would be far more likely I'd think for the wind to alter the heading, rather then for the wind to push her over

My own opinion is that the ship hit the rock, obviously the Capts fault, he then, or at least someone on the bridge then got it together enough to put her aground and in the process is probably responsible for avoiding the loss of a couple of hundred life's

lorcan122

LiamoSail wrote: »

My own opinion is that the ship hit the rock, obviously the Capts fault, he then, or at least someone on the bridge then got it together enough to put her aground and in the process is probably responsible for avoiding the loss of a couple of hundred life's

But if he had launched the lifeboats as soon as he had hit the rock, instead of waiting around, he might have saved more lives, he was just being careless with human lives in my opinion.

Poor Uncle Tom

LiamoSail wrote: »

Is this speculation...

No it's not.

I was looking for a link for you, but thanks to Sean Sherlock it isn't possible.

Information is courtesy of my memory after seeing the Discovery Channel's Cruise Ship Disaster: Inside the Concordia.

LiamoSail

lorcan122 wrote: »

But if he had launched the lifeboats as soon as he had hit the rock, instead of waiting around, he might have saved more lives, he was just being careless with human lives in my opinion.

The ship was sinking, I don't know how quickly she was going down, but there's no chance that they could have got as many off as they did get off if they had left her in position and allowed her to sink

All those found onboard in the days after would certainly have gone down with the ship for a start. Putting her aground was the best thing to do, and certainly saved hundreds of lives

I've never sailed on cruise ships, however I work at sea and have done more lifeboat drills then I care to remember. On a real ship (I don't count cruise ships as real ships), with 30+ trained professionals in a real abandonment situation, there would be quiet a degree of panic, and nothing would run as smoothly as in drills. So I can only imagine what it would be like in a real situation on a cruise ship, given you have hotel staff etc in charge of some lifeboats, with 4000 passengers panicking, the majority of whom haven't a clue what they are doing, and the remaining minority being either drunk, stupid or both. It would be an absolute nightmare, and most likely be extremely unorganised and inefficient. Getting the ship aground was the safest thing to do in my opinion to allow more time to abandon

I would also factor in the advantage that being closer to the shore allowed lifeboats do multiple runs, which would obviously be beneficial in case the list prevented the launching of boats on one side

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

No it's not.

I was looking for a link for you, but thanks to Sean Sherlock it isn't possible.

Information is courtesy of my memory after seeing the Discovery Channel's Cruise Ship Disaster: Inside the Concordia.

There's no need for a link thanks, was just asking as I find it quiet difficult to believe that it was the wind alone that put her there. Obviously the inquiry should determine this, but I'd be extremely sceptical of the wind alone being solely responsible for her going aground where she did, or the wind causing her to go over on her starboard side. Free surface would I imagine be a far more relevant factor

Poor Uncle Tom

We all find it difficult to believe the wind did all that. Maybe you are right that there were other factors involved as something like this is seldom caused by one error alone but a series of mistakes which lead to a disaster.

LiamoSail

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

We all find it difficult to believe the wind did all that. Maybe you are right that there were other factors involved as something like this is seldom caused by one error alone but a series of mistakes which lead to a disaster.

Sorry, what I meant was that obviously hitting the rock in the first place was down to navigating errors. My only point about the wind was that I would imagine that the ship was then deliberately put aground, rather then simply ending up there as a result of wind/current

cyrusdvirus

There is a element of speculation on the part of the Discovery/Nat Geo documentary too.

They stated the ship lost power quite early on in the crisis, yet the pictures of the Concordia show her lit up like a christmas tree as she's coming close to land.

Poor Uncle Tom

gatecrash wrote: »

There is a element of speculation on the part of the Discovery/Nat Geo documentary too.

They stated the ship lost power quite early on in the crisis, yet the pictures of the Concordia show her lit up like a christmas tree as she's coming close to land.

The emergency lighting had kicked in at that stage, but all power was lost for a while before it did.

Of course you are right that the exact details of what happened can't be pieced together that fast, but the bigger elements of the event are accurate as they are taken from AIS, several eye witness, coast guard communication, bridge cameras, etc.

LiamoSail

What's the story with the VDR? Someone mentioned to me the other day it wasn't working. Is that true?