There is lots of guessing out there in the wake of the COSTA CONCORDIA disaster. Here are my thoughts on the matter.
The initial accident:
First, there is lots of speculation on some sort of electrical failure or explosion which impacted the propulsion of the vessel. I think this speculation is merely the result of passengers being told this as an excuse at the time of the accident. I think that any electrical failure or ‘loud bang’ that has been widely reported was the result of the initial grounding.
First, there is lots of speculation on some sort of electrical failure or explosion which impacted the propulsion of the vessel. I think this speculation is merely the result of passengers being told this as an excuse at the time of the accident. I think that any electrical failure or ‘loud bang’ that has been widely reported was the result of the initial grounding.
Passenger statements that I have read
all seem to lack a period of time between this alleged electrical
failure and the grounding. Given the lack of time, for this to have been
a contributing factor, would have meant that the vessel was in such
close quarters that a mere interruption in propulsion power was enough
to ground the ship. That seems unlikely. Also, given the damage to the
hull, it appears that the vessel was traveling in a straight line when
it ran aground. So for this theory to hold true, the ship would have
been about to turn, to avoid this outcropping, or the vessel would have
turned into a new course and then run a straight course, that resulted
in the grounding. Again, not likely.
Some statements note that they hit
something that was not charted. I do not find this a credible excuse if
combined with the comment of a failure in the engine room. Interesting
in that the passengers have come ashore with stories of electrical
problems and the crew appear to be blaming the accuracy of the charts. I
suspect that the chart just might have been accurate, and the crew
miscalculated the real estate that they were occupying on the chart. The
grounding itself is the cause of the electrical problems. Keep in mind
that these vessels are so large, that the GPS mark does not tell the
whole story. What kind of position display did they have on the bridge?
Did it accurately display the vessel on the chart? Lots of coverage seem
to view the final resting place of the vessel as where it hit the
rocks, but my understanding is that the accident happened further
offshore. The stories that the Captain wanted to pass close to the
island are giving the impression that the initial grounding happened at
the island where in the details it appears that this happened on the way
to Giglio.
I see comments regarding the damage to
the hull on the port side and that the damage on the submerged starboard
side must be as bad. I suspect that the exposed damage is the damage
from the initial grounding. The opening in the hull is massive and in
some photos you can clearly see that the inside of the ship was open to
the sea. At least large enough for a person to climb through. Open
enough to immediately flood that compartment. Even once the ship listed
enough to put the hole above the surface, the water that came in was
still inside, denying the vessel the bouncy of that compartment as well
as reducing the stability of the vessel due to free surface effect. I
think that if there is damage on the starboard side, that it would have
been inflicted later.
Concerning the evacuation:
First, despite all the complaints of chaos and difficultly in loading and launching the lifeboats, the port side (the high side) of the vessel is draped with lifeboat falls of successfully launched boats (It appears that boat 6 is still in her cradle on the port side). The Starboard side also appears to have gotten most, if not all of their boats into the water as well, looking at the photo below. Also, photos from the harbor show both even and odd numbered boats. For the most-part, the thousands of passengers and crew were evacuated from the vessel.
First, despite all the complaints of chaos and difficultly in loading and launching the lifeboats, the port side (the high side) of the vessel is draped with lifeboat falls of successfully launched boats (It appears that boat 6 is still in her cradle on the port side). The Starboard side also appears to have gotten most, if not all of their boats into the water as well, looking at the photo below. Also, photos from the harbor show both even and odd numbered boats. For the most-part, the thousands of passengers and crew were evacuated from the vessel.
There were unfortunately some deaths. From what I gather, some
passengers jumped overboard and some of them died as a result. It is
unclear home many decided to self-evacuate. If the number of those who
jumped into the sea turns out to have been in the hundreds, than I might
have to re-evaluation my opinion regarding what I consider a successful
evacuation. Now it might be that passengers ended up in the water due
to the chaos of the moment and demands that woman and children go first.
As far as that issue goes, I wonder who started that policy. I doubt is
helped the situation at all. The goal should have been to fill the
boats as quickly as possible to get them launched. The progress in
clearing the deck would have helped calm the situation. Alternatively,
pushing the men back would have just the opposite effect. Anyway, the
whole point behind evacuating the women and children first off the
TITANIC was the simple sad fact that there were not enough spaces in the
lifeboats for all the passengers. This was not the case here. Anyway,
looking at the photo above, I see lots of people eager to get off the
vessel. I do not see anyone that I can clearly identify as crew. (I’m
not saying this is a problem. I’m not sure I would want to be in that
crowd. I would rather be either getting passengers into boats or trying
to keep the ship afloat.) Given the number of passengers, how could that
not feel chaotic? Still, they managed to find the boat deck, managed to
remember their life jacket from their staterooms and aren’t all there
with their carry-on luggage. Also note that there is lighting on the
boat deck. The rest of the ship might be dark, but there is light here.
It is interesting that there are reports
that the Captain somehow managed to abandon ship hours before the last
passenger. According to this timeline at the National Post,
the Captain was found ashore merely 25 minutes after the first lifeboat
made it ashore. That makes me wonder if he was onboard that first
lifeboat.
Just how did he manage to abandon ship
so quickly? If true, regardless of his involvement in contributing to
the initial grounding, his absence would be a contributing factor to the
confusion afterwards, and perhaps even to the loss of the vessel. Which
brings me to the question:
How did the vessel end up resting on its side on the bottom?
If the vessel was holed in only one compartment, I would think that it would have been possible to keep the vessel upright and afloat. This however would have required dedicated efforts from the engineering staff and damage control crew. Just how long do you think they would keep up their efforts once the rumor spreads that the Captain already abandoned ship and was ‘safe’ ashore?
If the vessel was holed in only one compartment, I would think that it would have been possible to keep the vessel upright and afloat. This however would have required dedicated efforts from the engineering staff and damage control crew. Just how long do you think they would keep up their efforts once the rumor spreads that the Captain already abandoned ship and was ‘safe’ ashore?
The vessel remained afloat with a list
for hours after the incident. So how did it end up on its side? The
lowering of the lifeboats would have helped increase the stability of
the vessel. Did the initial list permit water to enter the hull from
somewhere else into an otherwise secure compartment? If so, wouldn’t the
pumps have been able to handle this? To be clear, I think that there
was nothing that could have been done regarding the holed compartment,
other than to secure it to prevent flooding of other compartments. Or
was the damage so great that it spanned more than one watertight
compartment? (Can someone with access to the RENA website check hull
compartmentalization as well as whether this was a 1 or 2 compartment
vessel)
One possibility was that the vessel went
aground again near shore, putting this vessel on its side. I would have
thought that if it was clear that flooding was going to sink the vessel
that they would have purposefully put it aground again to save the ship
and keep it upright. The crew might have thought that would have been
the result in the location that they were at. The outcome might have
been different had the Captain remained on his ship. Even without
propulsion, he might have been able to call in tugs to better position
the vessel to prevent her from going over onto her side. It could be
that there was nothing that the Captain could have been able to do. Who
knows, maybe the crew was better off without him. Many of us know
Captains like that. But Captains like that are generally not placed in
charge of better ships. At any rate, this vessel seems to have lacked
leadership at the moment she needed it most.
Certainly more answers will be coming
over time. My guess is that the actions of the crew will generally be
seen as a contributing factor to the number of lives saved. I also
suspect that the actions of the Captain and whoever was the bridge watch
officer are going to figure highly in the list of causes of this
accident. As I write this over Sunday, I can already see the news
stories turning against the Captain. I’m thinking it will only get
worse.
I’m not one for criminalization of the
seafarer. However, criminal acts deserve to be punished. The Captain’s
actions are going to be difficult to defend, if it turns out that he
wasn’t there…
Sumber:http://gcaptain.com/costa-concordia-fred/?37587
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment