Costa Concordia Disaster - What happened?

[valvanuz]

... The bottom line is that CC's WT doors should have been closed whilst under a "hazardous" situation.

AP.

Are we sure the CC crew though they were in a "hazardous" situation?

[Steamer]

I do find it crazy that (whether bridge or locally operated) that anyone in a position of authority could conceive that these doors could be operated with TONS of water cascading on them sideways, to cause them to jam while closing. I would love to see one of these doors 'proof tested' under the conditions that when CC went through.

Sliding or rolling watertight doors are tested to close against the pressure of one meter of water above the sill. They will close without jamming even in a movie style flooding scenario.

If you contact a W/T door manufacturer and ask, they might send you a video of a test.

[AustralianPilot]

Are we sure the CC crew though they were in a "hazardous" situation?

The crew or the bridge team?

If there was any semblance of intelligent design, the bridge watertight door console should be interfaced with one of the numerous depth sounders/ENC outputs to alarm at a certain depth should any WT doors remain open...........devolves another part of the human jigsaw! Think of it as similar to the ground proximity alarm fitted to aircraft.

AP.

[cappy208]

Now we will see how many true "Old Timers" are on here!

On the old stick ships, how was the access between holds accomplished? Were there WT doors in subdivision bulkheads between holds?

What was the UN breakable rule concerning passage between said WT doors? When they were open what was the rule? When they were NOT being actively used what was the requirement?

How in Gods name, in today's 'more educated' professional society were these 'old fashioned' rules ignored? And what rocket scientist modified them? People DIED because of this stupidity. (granted almost all survived) But to lose ONE person due to an unbelievable design/everyday use flaw is inexcusable.

[Burong]

Changing the subject slightly, I noticed a few days ago that five more bodies have been recovered from Costa Concordia. The BBC news article is here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17472345

I read another article in which the newspaper said that a "robot" device had found the five bodies in a small area outside the ship, between the wreck and the seabed. How did they get there, I am wondering? Were they washed off the lifeboat deck or one of the other decks? Did they try to swim ashore but the idea went tragically wrong?

I guess we will never know and, like everyone else, my heart goes out to all the people who have lost loved ones in this tragedy. I think the only real consolation for the families is that at least they will have some measure of closure once all the bodies have been recovered and identified.

I think the next "big story" will be the salvage arrangements for the ship. I believe that Costa Cruises said that they will name the chosen salvors at the end of March 2012. When they do that, presumably they will also say exactly how the chosen salvors intend to remove the wreck.

I will be very interested to read what everyone on here says about the removal arrangements. I know nothing abour marine salvage, engineering and so forth but I suspect that whatever is proposed is likely to spark a storm of comment about whether the proposals are really feasible, what could go wrong during the removal operation and so forth. I will be very interested to read whatever the marine experts think about the proposed arrangements.

I do know that several of the potential salvage companies complained that they were asked to submit bids and proposals within such a short time that they were not really able to study all the details of the wreck and work out exactly how best to arrange the removal.

The people of Giglio Island are said to be particularly concerned about the salvage arrangements because they fear that it will damage the tourism on which they depend so heavily, normally. Personally, I doubt whether the islanders' incomes will suffer. Presumably the salvors will have a large team of people who will be based on the island? Also, there are bound to be many "ghoulish tourists" who will want to go and watch the wreck being removed in whatever way is decided.

[cappy208]

Have you seen any more pictures of the hull, specifically the stern and rudders, screws? Curious as to the condition and attitude of both.

It is unfortunate at the loss of life. It would seem that those under the hull either fell or jumped off prior to her laying over or as she was rolling. IIRC, there were reports that several people jumped over and tried to swim to Giglio. Reports that some made it. Obviously some didn't.

[Heiwa]

I know nothing abour marine salvage, engineering and so forth but I suspect that whatever is proposed is likely to spark a storm of comment about whether the proposals are really feasible, what could go wrong during the removal operation and so forth. I will be very interested to read whatever the marine experts think about the proposed arrangements.

It is very simple to raise the ship as it is resting on the shallow sea floor with most hull structural damages above water. Thus first repair temporarily the visible hull damages to make hull compartrments watertight and then upright the vessel on the sea floor so that the bulkhead deck comes above water ... and then pump out the watertight, undamaged compartments one after the other. You only have to pump out 50 000 m3 of water and the ship floats! Don't forget to close any open watertight doors, though!

[AustralianPilot]

Changing the subject slightly, I noticed a few days ago that five more bodies have been recovered from Costa Concordia. The BBC news article is here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17472345

I read another article in which the newspaper said that a "robot" device had found the five bodies in a small area outside the ship, between the wreck and the seabed. How did they get there, I am wondering? Were they washed off the lifeboat deck or one of the other decks? Did they try to swim ashore but the idea went tragically wrong?

I guess we will never know and, like everyone else, my heart goes out to all the people who have lost loved ones in this tragedy. I think the only real consolation for the families is that at least they will have some measure of closure once all the bodies have been recovered and identified.

I think the next "big story" will be the salvage arrangements for the ship. I believe that Costa Cruises said that they will name the chosen salvors at the end of March 2012. When they do that, presumably they will also say exactly how the chosen salvors intend to remove the wreck.

I will be very interested to read what everyone on here says about the removal arrangements. I know nothing abour marine salvage, engineering and so forth but I suspect that whatever is proposed is likely to spark a storm of comment about whether the proposals are really feasible, what could go wrong during the removal operation and so forth. I will be very interested to read whatever the marine experts think about the proposed arrangements.

I do know that several of the potential salvage companies complained that they were asked to submit bids and proposals within such a short time that they were not really able to study all the details of the wreck and work out exactly how best to arrange the removal.

The people of Giglio Island are said to be particularly concerned about the salvage arrangements because they fear that it will damage the tourism on which they depend so heavily, normally. Personally, I doubt whether the islanders' incomes will suffer. Presumably the salvors will have a large team of people who will be based on the island? Also, there are bound to be many "ghoulish tourists" who will want to go and watch the wreck being removed in whatever way is decided.

Burong,

Yes I agree with your highlighted sentiments. Salvors seem to have an inate ability to regularly pull a rabbit out of the hat.........only problem being, this is one hell of a big rabbit.

From a seafarer's humble viewpoint there are numerous problems with this salvage;

1. The CC is a very large vessel precariously held by a rock ledge which is allegedly moving.
2. To seaward of this ledge is relatively deep water.
3. The CC has incurred significant KNOWN damage to her watertight integrity which requires repair (assuming the intention is to re-float).
4. The CC has incurred significant UNKNOWN damage to her watertight integrity which requires repair (assuming the intention is to re-float).
5. I would assume that the initial actions will cater towards preventing any transverse movement towards the deeper water prior to adjusting buoyancy levels. Very tricky.

I look forward to following the salvage. A subject which has always fascinated me. If they get this off in one piece, they are veritable magicians.......nothing less.

AP

[Burong]

It is very simple to raise the ship as it is resting on the shallow sea floor with most hull structural damages above water. Thus first repair temporarily the visible hull damages to make hull compartrments watertight and then upright the vessel on the sea floor so that the bulkhead deck comes above water ... and then pump out the watertight, undamaged compartments one after the other. You only have to pump out 50 000 m3 of water and the ship floats! Don't forget to close any open watertight doors, though!

Mmmmm. What about the boulder? Can one just put tingles over that?

Also, as far as I know, there is very little information about how much damage the stbd side of the hull has sustained. From what I have read, they are now using "robots" because it is too dangerous for human divers to try to search inside the lowest levels inside the ship or for human divers to try to discover exactly how much damage the stbd side of the ship has sustained.

So until they try to move the wreck in some way, will the salvors really be sure what they are dealing with?

I stress that I am NOT a marine expert. However I do think Australian Pilot is right about the idea that they want to prevent the ship from slipping into deep water and sinking. The stbd side is said to be resting between two rocks and it is not clear whether these two rocks are cracking or moving.

Also, the people looking after Marine Heritage sites are said to be complaining about the idea of strong-points being fitted to the underwater rocks or the rocks which are visible. That, I think, is one of these impossible situations where the Heritage people do have considerable legal powers but since their own concern is Marine Heritage only, one would be tempted to ask them, "Do you want this wreck removed or not? If you do want it removed then live with the fact that a certain amount of damage to the Marine Heritage site is probably inevitable but the Marine Heritage site will recover sooner or later. It won't do so if the wreck remains where it is."

Trying to thrash out solutions that will satisfy all the various parties is probably impossible, I suspect. (At any rate, the salvors will have done a brilliant job if they succeed in pleasing everyone involved, given the diverse interests of the relevant parties.)

[Kennebec Captain]

Actually most cruise ships are pretty stiff with great GM due to damage stability limitations. It is nonsense talk that cruise ships normally heel >20° due to hard rudder action.

Don't think this is right. A stiff ship is going to snap roll in a sea.Cruise ships would want a gentle, easy roll, that would be a low GM.
A tender ship will not roll as easily in a sea but would tend to heel over in a turn. A tender ship would have less damage stability then a stiff one. Cruise ships with a high freeboard would likely have a low 'GM for passenger comfort.

K.C.

[cappy208]

During some very long and boring watches I discovered an old US Navy salvage and foundering manual. I recall one of the topics being the use of kedges (large anchors) being used to secure wrecks in place until removal was appropriate. Also use of multiple purchase block and tackle is rigged to slowly and methodically change a vessels attitude to right it so as to be able to be pumped out. Even huge ships like the CC can be manipulated this way. This is definitely a specialty of expertise, but it is doable. it just must be done with the local political approval.

[Burong]

I tried to check today about whether the salvage arrangements for Costa Concordia have been announced as originally promised. It sounds like the original plans have run into delays.

I found the beginning of an article on the Lloyds List website:

http://www.lloydslist.com/ll/sector/...icle394845.ece

It is possible to sign up to Lloyds List for a free one week trial but I did that soon after the tragedy and the Lloyds List website refuses to let me have a second free week! So I cannot access the rest of the article. I think the full subscription is fairly expensive and since I am not involved with the shipping industry, I don't wish to pay for news about Costa Concordia.

Another part of the Lloyds List website - with the link to the same article above - says that, "Capsized druiseship likely to be the most complex and expensive salvage to date." I think most people already knew that!

The other day I read that they have now removed all the fuel from the ship

I suspect that, originally, Costa wanted to reassure the people of Giglio Island that they would not hang around for a year before doing anything about arranging for the wreck to be removed, meaning that it would be two or three years before Giglio Island returns to normal. Equally, I did wonder about some of the suggestions that Giglio's ordinary tourism industry would only be disrupted for the remainder of 2012. That idea sounded a tad optimistic to me.

Equally, if I were the Mayor of Giglio, I would now be pushing for some definite plans and a definite time-scale. The wreck is becoming an eye-sore that he and his fellow islanders have to look at every day. It is too easy to ignore the islanders' concerns when one is sitting in an office in Genoa or elsewhere. The islanders matter the most because this wreck should not be cluttering up their shoreline. In their shoes, I would put up with disruption for the remainder of 2012 but I would be very annoyed - and I would not simply put up a meek and passive response -if I heard that it will be sometime in 2013 or beyound before all trace of the wreck is finally removed.

[Heiwa]

I wouldn't worry too much. The wreck is good PR for Isola del Giglio and plenty tourists will come to have a look at the attraction - the tourist one. So why remove it? And who is going to pay for the removal? Shipowner? Insurance? Tax payers? Maybe the best thing is to make it permanent and charge visitors to pay for a look! Of US/Italian stupid destruction of the cruise at sea buisiness!

[Heiwa]

CC will be salvaged!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...uise-ship.html

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news...osta_concordia

"The method used to refloat the 114,000 tonne Costa will involve sealing up the holes in the structure of the hull, as well as the huge gash and sealing off sections into airtight compartments. (Hm, the vessel weighs only 50 000 tons! ... and let's make the compartments watertight, FGS!!)
From there huge pontoons and cranes will be brought in, while pipelines are fixed to the Costa and air will be pumped into the compartments to give it buoyancy before it is straightened and then towed away to a dock, most likely its home port of Genoa where it was launched in 2006. (Hm, the ship was not built/launched at Genoa and it is better to pump out water than pump in air … but anyway!)."

So the show will go on and new mistakes will be done by new, young bright people!

[Steamer]

it is better to pump out water than pump in air … but anyway!"

Since it appears you know more about the condition of the hull than the salvors, perhaps you should go over there and set them straight.

You can pass the hours on the flight by reading some case studies of ship salvage where low pressure air was used to keep the ship afloat after as much hull repair as possible was performed. I suggest you fly the long way around unless you are a speed reader as well as a salvage expert.

[AustralianPilot]

Burong,

I have the latest Lloyd's List Australia dated 29.3.12 which discusses the insurance issues and I will summarise in dot points;

"Costa Concordia loss could cost London market US$800m".

• Independent investment and broking firm Numis compares the incident to the "Deepwater Horizon", expecting CC to make an insurance loss of US$600~US$800m.
• With Carnival's account spread thinly across the London market, Numis said it would be surprised if any single player held more than 5%~10% 0f the risk. Most of the London stocks are likely to have some exposure.
• More significantly, we think the psychological impact of seeing the unthinkable happen will trigger a significant change in risk assessment by underwriters as was the case with "Deepwater Horizon".
• The cruise ship is insured under a global insurance program, arranged via broker Aon.
• The hull and machinery underwriters will pay for the loss of the vessel, whether the underwriters class it as a total loss, a constructive total loss or a repair.
• As a total loss or a constructive total loss, the P&I cover would meet the cost of removing the wreck as this would be a liability issue.
• In terms of P&I cover, it is understood that Carnival will pay the first US$10m.
• Clubs Standard and Steamship will share the next US$8m then the claim will move to the international group pool where all clubs will contribute to the next US$60m.
• At that point the claim will move to IG's excess of loss contract, leaving the London market to deal with whatever is left.

AP.

[Burong]

CC will be salvaged!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...uise-ship.html

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news...osta_concordia

"The method used to refloat the 114,000 tonne Costa will involve sealing up the holes in the structure of the hull, as well as the huge gash and sealing off sections into airtight compartments. (Hm, the vessel weighs only 50 000 tons! ... and let's make the compartments watertight, FGS!!)
From there huge pontoons and cranes will be brought in, while pipelines are fixed to the Costa and air will be pumped into the compartments to give it buoyancy before it is straightened and then towed away to a dock, most likely its home port of Genoa where it was launched in 2006. (Hm, the ship was not built/launched at Genoa and it is better to pump out water than pump in air … but anyway!)."

So the show will go on and new mistakes will be done by new, young bright people!

Heiwa

I saw the Daily Wail article over the weekend but decided that their claims are not to be trusted. Apparently Costa Cruises intend to name the chosen salvors during mid-April 2012 and they are not prepared to release any details of the planned salvage arrangements until the salvors have been named.

My guess is that the salvors have probably now been chosen but that until both sides have signed the salvage contract, nothing can be taken to be certain. None of the journos working for The Wail know anything about how to salvage a ship so my feeling is that their claims might be nothing more than journalistic fiction - like so many of the other newspaper reports about this tragedy.

Also, as soon as anything is known for certain, Lloyds List will probably be the first to publish the real proposed details with their own comments about feasibility or otherwise.

I noted your comment that tourists will always be interested to look at the wreck of the ship. For now, I think you are right - but the wreck is still white and it still looks like a cruise ship. Once it starts to rust and rot, it will look dreadful and I think tourists will lose interest in the spectacle at that stage? Also, it wouldn't do Costa's corporate image any good to have the rusting hulk of one of their ships anywhere where a potential passenger might see the thing, surely?

[Burong]

Burong,

I have the latest Lloyd's List Australia dated 29.3.12 which discusses the insurance issues and I will summarise in dot points;

"Costa Concordia loss could cost London market US$800m".

• Independent investment and broking firm Numis compares the incident to the "Deepwater Horizon", expecting CC to make an insurance loss of US$600~US$800m.
• With Carnival's account spread thinly across the London market, Numis said it would be surprised if any single player held more than 5%~10% 0f the risk. Most of the London stocks are likely to have some exposure.
• More significantly, we think the psychological impact of seeing the unthinkable happen will trigger a significant change in risk assessment by underwriters as was the case with "Deepwater Horizon".
• The cruise ship is insured under a global insurance program, arranged via broker Aon.
• The hull and machinery underwriters will pay for the loss of the vessel, whether the underwriters class it as a total loss, a constructive total loss or a repair.
• As a total loss or a constructive total loss, the P&I cover would meet the cost of removing the wreck as this would be a liability issue.
• In terms of P&I cover, it is understood that Carnival will pay the first US$10m.
• Clubs Standard and Steamship will share the next US$8m then the claim will move to the international group pool where all clubs will contribute to the next US$60m.
• At that point the claim will move to IG's excess of loss contract, leaving the London market to deal with whatever is left.

AP.

Thank you, AP

It sounds to me as if there won't be any litigation about paying out for the loss of Costa Concordia - unless something goes catastrophically wrong during the salvage operation, I suppose.

Presumably the salvage operation will be heavily insured and re-insured in its own right, anyway, I would guess? I think the people in charge of the Marine Heritage side of things would probably insist on specific insurance for the salvage operation, just in case it all goes wrong and damages the Marine Heritage site.

According to the various reports, Costa Concordia's keel is only 8 feet away from the edge of the underwater "cliff." It is not as if she is just lying on her side on a flat beach where it wouldn't matter that much if she slipped. Added to which, the wreck seems to be very precariously balanced and some of the divers etc are reported to have said that the ship's shape is already beginning to hog, even without any extreme weather. Hence I am suspicious of the Daily Mail's glib claims about the alleged salvage plans. .

I note that Lloyds List Australia are saying that the Costa Concordia incident is likely to alter the way that risks are assessed in future. I think that goes back to what you said at the very beginning - you said that this one event is likely to be a "watershed" in the whole way that the regulators, insurers and others will deal with cruise ships in years to come.

[AustralianPilot]

Thank you, AP

It sounds to me as if there won't be any litigation about paying out for the loss of Costa Concordia - unless something goes catastrophically wrong during the salvage operation, I suppose.

Presumably the salvage operation will be heavily insured and re-insured in its own right, anyway, I would guess? I think the people in charge of the Marine Heritage side of things would probably insist on specific insurance for the salvage operation, just in case it all goes wrong and damages the Marine Heritage site.

According to the various reports, Costa Concordia's keel is only 8 feet away from the edge of the underwater "cliff." It is not as if she is just lying on her side on a flat beach where it wouldn't matter that much if she slipped. Added to which, the wreck seems to be very precariously balanced and some of the divers etc are reported to have said that the ship's shape is already beginning to hog, even without any extreme weather. Hence I am suspicious of the Daily Mail's glib claims about the alleged salvage plans. .

I note that Lloyds List Australia are saying that the Costa Concordia incident is likely to alter the way that risks are assessed in future. I think that goes back to what you said at the very beginning - you said that this one event is likely to be a "watershed" in the whole way that the regulators, insurers and others will deal with cruise ships in years to come.

Burong,

I take you back to Cappy 208's contribution #669.

A Panamax bulk carrier "Pasha Bulker" grounded on the East Coast of Australia during a fierce east coast low in June 2007. She ended totally upright on a flat reef with gently shoaling depths to seaward. A fairly straightforward "text book" salvage.....as easy as any salvage can be. The means of removing her employed big tugs, kedge anchors, multi-purchase tackle, high tides and good weather. She incurred significant machinery, bottom and side plate damage, has been repaired and is now back in service.

I believe that the salvage of the CC will re-write the text books. The complexity is enormous. One can only assume that the salvage will be a "fluid" (no pun intended) approach as the problems no doubt raise their heads. Solve one problem and here comes another............

I have the utmost respect and admiration for all recognised Salvage Masters and teams. They are extremely talented professionals in a very limited number.

As news comes to light, via LLA, I shall share with the boards. The integrity of their reports is first class.

AP.

[Heiwa]

Since it appears you know more about the condition of the hull than the salvors, perhaps you should go over there and set them straight.

You can pass the hours on the flight by reading some case studies of ship salvage where low pressure air was used to keep the ship afloat after as much hull repair as possible was performed. I suggest you fly the long way around unless you are a speed reader as well as a salvage expert.

In my humble opinion it is much better to pump water out of the hull than to pump air into the hull to refloat the vessel.

I live not far from the wreck and follow the show with interest.

If I were the underwriter I would not pay a cent as the ship was not insured against the risks when sailing 1 meter from shore!