"Concordia disaster highlights dangers of super-sized cruise ships" - changes coming?

[Scandic, Harrogate]

"The Costa Concordia disaster highlights the dangers of super-sized cruise ships Rapid developments in passenger shipping have not kept pace with safety requirements: this is a wake-up call to the industry"





The Costa Concordia disaster highlights the dangers of super-sized cruise ships | Andrew Linington | Comment is free | The Guardian


Interesting article - and more and more comment in the media saying much the same thing. We all want balconies, cruise companies want bigger ships for economies of scale - but are they now becoming, putting it bluntly, top-heavy?

I suspect the days of cruise ships built the way they're being built now are numbered.

[Malcolm, Essex]

..but are they now becoming, putting it bluntly, top-heavy?

I think the article is a little inaccurate, in parts.

Modern cruise ships are NOT top heavy, they just look it!

Modern cruise ships are more stable than the classic Ocean Liners of yesteryear. The famed 'Queen Mary' used to roll by 45 Degree in an Atlantic storm. Her hull design would not be allowed now.

Modern ship have their engines, generators, fuel, water, ballast and stores deep in the steel hull. The upper decks are often made of Aluminium (such as QE2, Voyager class, Independence class etc.) so the upper decks are much lighter than the hull.

If you laid a modern cruise ship on her side or even turned it upside down, it would right itself like a 'weeble' because much of the weight is concentrated low in the hull. The 'Poseidon Adventure' was just fiction.

Costa Concordia keeled over because she had a 90 foot rip in her hull letting in tons of water. It is difficult to design a ship that could cope with its stability compromised in such a way.

Without sounding callas, most of the Concordia passengers survived without serious injury. So it was possible to evacute so many people (although sea conditions were good and land was nearby!)

I don't think we will see many design changes to cruise ships. However room for human error (Captaincy procedures etc.) needs to be re-though.

It's the motor car that needs to be re-though - more people probably die driving to the worlds cruise ports than in ship accidents.

[Scandic, Harrogate]

Without sounding callas, most of the Concordia passengers survived without serious injury.

I don't think we will see many design changes to ships. However Captaincy procedures should be re-though. It's the motor car that needs to be re-though - more people die driving to the worlds cruise ports than in ship accidents.

I take your point, but the Concordia passengers only survived because they were so close to land. Had anything like this happened anywhere else, I think hundreds would have been lost.

Many of the lifeboats couldn't be launched, and you do have to wonder what would have happened. OK, it would have been less likely away from land, but these things do happen.

I think we're going to see the floating hotel block design seriously challenged by safety experts, and that process is already starting to happen.

Expect opposition from the cruise companies.

[Cooke, Ashby]

I think the article is a little inaccurate, in parts.

Modern cruise ships are NOT top heavy, they just look it!


It's the motor car that needs to be re-though - more people die driving to the worlds cruise ports than in ship accidents.

I disagree with your top heavy theory Malcolm. Since the ship wreck (can't really call it anything else), several knowledgable people have commented that the design of the super size ships is questionable. Ventura comes to mind, why does she miss so many Caribbean ports in bad weather, when other ships dock with little problem?

From today's reports it seems the Captain was at fault and was also a coward.

Of course more people die in RTAs than on cruises. Most people drive every day, but cruise only a couple of weeks a year. Hence greater risk. Judith

[Malcolm, Essex]

It's like modern aircraft: If an A380 went down, heaven forbid, you loose 900 people. Nine planes carrying 100 people would be so much safer. However air crashes are so rare, it's not worth worring about.

likewise Costa Concordia is the biggest ship to sink in peacetime for 100 years!

[jonah, loughborough]

I think the article is a little inaccurate, in parts.

Modern cruise ships are NOT top heavy, they just look it!

Modern cruise ships are more stable than the classic Ocean Liners of yesteryear. The famed 'Queen Mary' used to roll by 45 Degree in an Atlantic storm. Her hull design would not be allowed now.

Modern ship have their engines, generators, fuel, water, ballast and stores deep in the steel hull. The upper decks are often made of Aluminium (such as QE2, Voyager class, Independence class etc.) so the upper decks are much lighter than the hull.

If you laid a modern cruise ship on her side or even turned it upside down, it would right itself like a 'weeble' because much of the weight is concentrated low in the hull. The 'Poseidon Adventure' was just fiction.

Costa Concordia keeled over because she had a 90 foot rip in her hull letting in tons of water. It is difficult to design a ship that could cope with its stability compromised in such a way.

Without sounding callas, most of the Concordia passengers survived without serious injury. So it was possible to evacute so many people (although sea conditions were good and land was nearby!)

I don't think we will see many design changes to cruise ships. However room for human error (Captaincy procedures etc.) needs to be re-though.

It's the motor car that needs to be re-though - more people probably die driving to the worlds cruise ports than in ship accidents.

Forgive me for my ignorance on this, but if as you state, cruise ships are not top heavy and that most of the weight lies in the lower part of the ship and that most ships would right themselves if they where capsized because of this, then how come once the Concordia started taking it water into the lower part and hence increasing the weight did she not right herself??
I can understand that the added weight of the water on one side would perhaps "pull the boat over" but the pics seem to show that the hole made in her hull is on the opposite side to the side which lays in the water, hence the water would have to have traveled through the ship, so why doesnt she just lay deeper in the water but still upright??

[Malcolm, Essex]

I disagree with your top heavy theory Malcolm.

That's a pity, I'm right!

Since the ship wreck (can't really call it anything else), several knowledgable people have commented that the design of the super size ships is questionable.

Other knowledgable people have commented that the design of today's big ships is NOT flawed.

Ventura comes to mind, why does she miss so many Caribbean ports in bad weather, when other ships dock with little problem?

Wind can be a major problem for big ships, there tall profiles can act like a sail. This does not mean that they are unstable. However even the great Ocean Liners had problems docking in high winds.

From today's reports it seems the Captain was at fault and was also a coward.

One source says that he/the ship was 'required' to skim the island (within 500 metres) last summer for a special celebration. It was not the first time. However this time he did it without permission and got too close (300 metres). Should he have been asked to do it last year, given the risk? Sounds like ‘corporate’ complacency to me.

[Malcolm, Essex]

... hence the water would have to have traveled through the ship, so why doesnt she just lay deeper in the water but still upright??

I don't really know, but ships with a hole in the hull often capsize? I suppose the hull is not designed to hold water inside!

Do we seriously belive that the thousands of big modern cruise ships are all unstable? They are all computer designed and tank-tested from stability! See:

Power for Change - 10 (of 13) Ship capsize tests - YouTube

Oasis of the Seas: Stability and Integrity - YouTube

VO70 Tank testing - YouTube

[Solent Richard, Lee on the Solent]

Exactly what one would expect from an 'article' in the Guardian.

It got off to a bad start with it's usual leftie sniping referring to the Concordia as 'Luxury'.

But there, the Guardian isn't exactly renowned for it's cruising sponsored advertisements either. Cruising doesn't go down to well with the tree huggers.

[Solent Richard, Lee on the Solent]

Cooke, Ashby wrote...

I disagree with your top heavy theory Malcolm. Since the ship wreck (can't really call it anything else), several knowledgable people have commented that the design of the super size ships is questionable. Ventura comes to mind, why does she miss so many Caribbean ports in bad weather, when other ships dock with little problem?

From today's reports it seems the Captain was at fault and was also a coward.

Of course more people die in RTAs than on cruises. Most people drive every day, but cruise only a couple of weeks a year. Hence greater risk. Judith

I'm with Malcolm who actually knows what he is talking about.

I listened to a so called knowledgeable commentator yesterday evening on the ITV national news. He was a Trades Union official from Nautilus International. He got it wrong as well and it was obvious he had an axe to grind against the cruise industry.

As for Ventura 'missing' a port or two in bad weather, that often happens to many other ships as well, Zebrugge springs to mind. That is down to the wind factor against the surface area of the ships side. Nothing to do with it's stability and being top heavy - which of course it isn't.

[Hampshire Thorn, Fareham]

Forgive me for my ignorance on this, but if as you state, cruise ships are not top heavy and that most of the weight lies in the lower part of the ship and that most ships would right themselves if they where capsized because of this, then how come once the Concordia started taking it water into the lower part and hence increasing the weight did she not right herself??
I can understand that the added weight of the water on one side would perhaps "pull the boat over" but the pics seem to show that the hole made in her hull is on the opposite side to the side which lays in the water, hence the water would have to have traveled through the ship, so why doesnt she just lay deeper in the water but still upright??

I'm no expert either but I understood that the ship was in shallow water - too shallow for her - and she therefore toppled to one side. Is this correct?

[History Addict, Alfreton]

I'm no expert either but I understood that the ship was in shallow water - too shallow for her - and she therefore toppled to one side. Is this correct?

I saw a complicated explanation earlier of what happens to the flow of water if a ship is in water that is too shallow for it and too near to the shore. The gist was that a movement of water goes towards the shore and then bounces back and if there isn't enough draft underneath the ship it can cause it to tilt. i'm not saying that is what happened here but I believe it is something being considered.

There is always the possibility of a second hole on the other side too as the ship did a u-turn after the first impact to try and get to shallow waters.

[MR T, Staffs]

Yes i think the Captain was a coward and should be locked up for a long time.
The people in high command are on very rich wages and the poor staff are that poor.
It seems that the lower crew did stay and help while he deserted.
Will not mention what the Italians did in WW2???

[Solent Richard, Lee on the Solent]

I'm no expert either but I understood that the ship was in shallow water - too shallow for her - and she therefore toppled to one side. Is this correct?

Expert or not Hampshire Thorn, you are on the right track. I have just commented on another thread...

http://www.cruises.co.uk/109-cruise_...seline-12.html

You may be missing the point. The ship may well have remained stable, and the lifeboats could have been safely launched, but for the fact the Captain took her close into the port and effectively ran her aground. That is why she is in the position she is: resting on the bottom.

She took on the list because there was no depth of water under her keel.

Seeing some of the speculation and conjecture being offered since this tragic accident one wonders how some minds work.

[jimtheoldsalt, felixstowe]

I think the article is a little inaccurate, in parts.

Modern cruise ships are NOT top heavy, they just look it!

Modern cruise ships are more stable than the classic Ocean Liners of yesteryear. The famed 'Queen Mary' used to roll by 45 Degree in an Atlantic storm. Her hull design would not be allowed now.

Modern ship have their engines, generators, fuel, water, ballast and stores deep in the steel hull. The upper decks are often made of Aluminium (such as QE2, Voyager class, Independence class etc.) so the upper decks are much lighter than the hull.

If you laid a modern cruise ship on her side or even turned it upside down, it would right itself like a 'weeble' because much of the weight is concentrated low in the hull. The 'Poseidon Adventure' was just fiction.

Costa Concordia keeled over because she had a 90 foot rip in her hull letting in tons of water. It is difficult to design a ship that could cope with its stability compromised in such a way.

Without sounding callas, most of the Concordia passengers survived without serious injury. So it was possible to evacute so many people (although sea conditions were good and land was nearby!)

I don't think we will see many design changes to cruise ships. However room for human error (Captaincy procedures etc.) needs to be re-though.

It's the motor car that needs to be re-though - more people probably die driving to the worlds cruise ports than in ship accidents.

The 90 ft hole is on her port side,yet she has heeled over to stb,if all her w/t doors had been closed ,her stability would not have been compromised,BUT with a large influx of water creating a large free surface effect combined wit a probale quick turn to stboard ,that would have caused her to turn on her side.
Every ship since time began has had fuel,water and ballast low down in double bottom tanks,generators were also in the enging room ,but modern cruise now have the gennies way up high.
Modern ships are no more or less stable than those of the past,with a high centre of buoyancy and a low centre of gravity all ships are stable,what makes a ship roll is a large Gm..big gm =a stiff vessel which will roll quickly.
Asmall gm will make the ship tender and then will tend to roll slow and long. The fiction bit is right cos something called the angle of loll comes into effect.