# Costa sinking.



## twogrumpy

Not being up to date on these modern things, I am sure someone could tell me, 1/ what type of fuel she would use in her main engines/ generators which I suspect are the same thing, & 2/ are they fitted with azipod type propulsion units?

I ask here in the assumption that I wil get a sensible engineering answer, the other Costa thread seemed to have quite a lot of crud content.

Oh and forgot to mention, no suggestion so far that the whole thing was caused by an engineering breakdown, bit slow off the mark for a change.

Cheers
2G


----------



## sparkie2182

No suggestion as it is feasible.


----------



## makko

Hi Grumpy,
Data below. The vessel uses HFO - I think max bunkers are 2,300 T. As you can see, she is not pod driven but has twin fixed props.

Owner: Costa Crociere - Italy a Carnival Corp.& Plc. company. 

Entered service: 2006 - Gross tonnage: 114.147 - Pass. cap. lower beds: 3004 - All berths: 3780 - Passenger decks: 13 - Length: 290,12 m.- Beam: 35,50 m. - 

Drive: diesel/electric: 6 diesel engines make Wärtsilä total output 75.600 kW. - Propulsion: 2 Fixed propellers 34.000 kW each - Service speed: 19,5 knots - Max.speed: 23 knots - Built: Fincantieri - Italy - Yard no:6122 - Classification: Rina - Flag: Italy

Sistersips: Costa Serena (2007) - Costa Pacifica (2009) - Costa Favolosa (2011) - Costa Fascinosa (2012) - ships are modified version of Carnival's Conquest serie.

Rgds.
Dave


----------



## saxon

The crud content, as you put it, on the other thread contains the answer to your question 2.
Oh, and have you tried Google, amazing what you can find there


----------



## Blackal

Perhaps the original poster - in addition to looking for specific information, was also trying to start a discussion? Nothing wrong with that - we all learn something.

I must admit that the apparent news (post #3) that a high value ship like this - has an owner in common with other ships is surprising.

Usually they are their own company to limit liability and are only managed by a common company.

Al


----------



## twogrumpy

saxon said:


> The crud content, as you put it, on the other thread contains the answer to your question 2.
> Oh, and have you tried Google, amazing what you can find there


I quickly got bored withthe crud content, and would rather deal with engineers as I find on the whole they know what they are talking about.
(Applause)


----------



## Blackal

That's me excused.............. 

Al


----------



## Boatman25

twogrumpy said:


> I quickly got bored withthe crud content, and would rather deal with engineers as I find on the whole they know what they are talking about.
> (Applause)


Charming O to be so rude


----------



## John Dryden

Well you got your answer grumpy...now back down below.


----------



## howardws

twogrumpy said:


> I quickly got bored withthe crud content, and would rather deal with engineers as I find on the whole they know what they are talking about.
> (Applause)


I'm an Engineer, I sailed with quite a few who didn't know what they were talking about.


----------



## twogrumpy

howardws said:


> I'm an Engineer, I sailed with quite a few who didn't know what they were talking about.


Possibly I had more more luck than you did.
(Applause)


----------



## Shipbuilder

This is just a question to qualified engineers - no hidden agenda.

What could have been the reason for it rolling over on its undamaged side, leaving the hole out of the water? I would have thought it would have rolled towards the damaged side as soon as it cleared the spur of rock that holed it, presumbaly, it didn't stop immediatley!

Bob


----------



## dom

*dom*

doesnt take long for the crud to be flung about


----------



## Shipbuilder

I am not flinging crud! 

I am just wondering why it should roll away from the damage rather than towards it! The question has nothing to do with blaming anyone, or whether it should have happenned or not or reasons it could have been prevented!

Does anyone think there is a reason? or was it pure chance and could have gone either way!

Bob


----------



## Blackal

CRUD - Chalk River Unidentified Deposit

An acronym from the nuclear industry, originating from the CANDU reactor at Chalk River. 

CANDU: CANadian Deutarium Uranium reactor.

HTH................. (Hope That Helps) 

Al


----------



## R58484956

According to a book of ships i have it states that CC has two azimuth pods.


----------



## CAPTAIN JEREMY

Shipbuilder said:


> I am not flinging crud!
> 
> I am just wondering why it should roll away from the damage rather than towards it! The question has nothing to do with blaming anyone, or whether it should have happenned or not or reasons it could have been prevented!
> 
> Does anyone think there is a reason? or was it pure chance and could have gone either way!
> 
> Bob


We cannot be sure that is the only damage to the underwater hull, but it is the only visible damage, as the rest of the ship is under water. 

The stbd list could be due to incorrect ballasting in attempt to correct a perceived list without fully understanding the issues of damage stability. The ship will have lost stability either due to free surface effect or due to the flooding of one or more compartments, and would have a negative GM. It will list until it reaches a position of equilibrium, but this is a very unstable condition. By ballasting the "high" side first, there is the risk of that the ship will then "flip" to the other side and possibly even capsize. 

The other possibility would be that while in an unstable condition, turning the ship around would have caused the ship to "flip" across to the other side.

I have to admit to not having any first hand experience of this, thankfully, so it is speculation.


----------



## Mike S

From some one who is not an engineer.......but does have a knowledge of stability......
By the time she took the ground she was well flooded and leaning to stbd. A number of reasons for this, most likely angle of loll and excess free surface.
Once she touched bottom the change of G would cause her to list in the direction she was listing. To stbd ..........
Some of us on the deck side of things in the old days used to learn our craft...........Most Engineers I sailed with (I am the son of one) were great people. I abhor the "Oil and water" syndrome which with respect you seem to be perpatrating.
My biggest worry which no one has mentioned is were there any engineers on watch in the engine room at the time or were they on UMS. God help them; poor devils if they were down there.............


----------



## Shipbuilder

Thanks, I did wonder if a turn would make it go the other way. I have been aboard a large passenger ship that suddenly made a turn at 22.5 knots (man overboard) and it did make us heel quite a lot!

I also wondered if both sides were damaged.

A third possibility that may just be my imaginings was that if maybe 1,000 passengers or more were on the top deck, all on one side, to watch the land go by, would that have made it lean that way. If so, I don't suppose anything could have been done about it, because they had every right to stand where they wanted!

I know that personnel can make a difference, because some years ago (during Falklands), my ship (3,150 gross) started to bounce very violently in a way that we had never experienced before in flat calm conditions. It was found to be 70 odd troops doing their physical jerks on the flight deck (aft of the funnel) and jumping up and down in unison. As soon as they were told to stop, the movement stopped!

Bob


----------



## makko

Shipbuilder said:


> This is just a question to qualified engineers - no hidden agenda.
> 
> What could have been the reason for it rolling over on its undamaged side, leaving the hole out of the water? I would have thought it would have rolled towards the damaged side as soon as it cleared the spur of rock that holed it, presumbaly, it didn't stop immediatley!
> 
> Bob


I was just pondering your question Bob. Bear with me! - RoRo's have a complex auto balance system to maintain the vessel level and at a constant draught. The reason for this is so that the ramp does not get deformed or damaged. The ballasting is to wing tanks, with pumping by twin 5,000 tph pumps. I would assume that a cruise ship would have an auto ballast system in order to keep the punters happy (just like the electric drive, no diesel heaving!).

Years ago, the Barber Perseus hit the dock in NOLA (I was not aboard). She gashed open several of her starboard wing tanks. Obviously, the outrush of water (which washed stevedores into the river) was rapid and caused the vessel to heel severely to port.

This maybe the reason that the CC heeled over to the opposite side to the damage - Loss of ballast.

Just to finish the anecdote, the B. Perseus was a bit jinxed - The waste heat boiler fell from the engine room roof (condensation corrosion) and the ramp hoist system failed twisting the ramp and requiring its replacement.

Best Regards,
Dave


----------



## Shipbuilder

Dave,
That all makes sense and I can see how water ballast pouring out through the hole would make her go the other way. Never thought of that at all! I suppose if it was in deep water, if it was ballast coming out that did it, she may well have capsized completely! 
I will just await the enquiry and see what actually hapenned, but I was curious about that point. Thanks for explanation.
Bob


----------



## twogrumpy

R58484956 said:


> According to a book of ships i have it states that CC has two azimuth pods.


Must say I was under the impression that most of these things had pods, but have seen neither in any of the pix, pod could possibly have been knocked off when rock samples were taken.

2G


----------



## TOM ALEXANDER

Something which I don't think has been mentioned, or at least very little, is that in some pix I've seen there is a stabilizer in the deployed position on the obviously damaged side. Not having been at sea in a commercial capacity for many years, I wonder whether this is standard practise when operating in calm conditions, and also whether this may have been instrumental in pulling the vessel off course into an obstruction should it have been the first part of the ship to make contact with the "Hard Place"?


----------



## gordy

twogrumpy said:


> Possibly I had more more luck than you did.
> (Applause)


I was lucky too. Numpties got found out quickly and moved on, maybe not at their own request.


----------



## Derek Roger

Shipbuilder said:


> Thanks, I did wonder if a turn would make it go the other way. I have been aboard a large passenger ship that suddenly made a turn at 22.5 knots (man overboard) and it did make us heel quite a lot!
> 
> I also wondered if both sides were damaged.
> 
> A third possibility that may just be my imaginings was that if maybe 1,000 passengers or more were on the top deck, all on one side, to watch the land go by, would that have made it lean that way. If so, I don't suppose anything could have been done about it, because they had every right to stand where they wanted!
> 
> I know that personnel can make a difference, because some years ago (during Falklands), my ship (3,150 gross) started to bounce very violently in a way that we had never experienced before in flat calm conditions. It was found to be 70 odd troops doing their physical jerks on the flight deck (aft of the funnel) and jumping up and down in unison. As soon as they were told to stop, the movement stopped!
> 
> Bob


Bob I have also considered your observation about passengers moving to one side and it is a very valid point . However if 75 % went to the land side which is more than probable that would translate to about about 275 tonnes of passengers and crew on one side and about 70 tonnes on the other side the net effect would be about 200 tonnes on the land side . Her beam is 115 feet so that would give a listing moment of 200 tonnes X 115 feet divided by 2 . Which would equate to 11500 tonnes ft I think it is more likely that when she grounded the second time when the captain tried to put her close to land ( which I believe to be the biggest mistake )
She sat on rocks which put her over ; the passenger effect would not have helped as would a falling tide . Then down flooding would just continue .

I have put a thread in the so called crud post with regard to my opinion that she would have satyed afloat and upright if she had not been grounded . Time will tell .
Regards Derek


----------



## Mike S

Derek......forgive me please but how did the Capt put her anywhere without engines and steering?
Sorry to ask an awkward question!


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett

Looking at it now, I think:

1. She was a dead ship due to flooding of the engine room spaces immediately after the impact.

2. The emergency generator(s) started correctly. 

3. She heeled to port initally then rolled to starboard and assumed a loll to starboard, perhaps due to free surface in the engine spaces, perhaps due to further downflooding.

4. (Assuming, at this point, a light easterly wind, maybe the land breeze off the mainland - anyone know?) she drifted ashore, grounding on her starboard bilge.

5. The anchor(s) were dropped at this point.

6. After she took the ground, the starboard boats were launched butshe continued to downflood, and after a while she lurched violently to starboard as the c.g. shift took effect

7. The lurch to starboard put the deck edge under and from then on she would downflood faster. 

8. The infra-red video from the chopper shows her much higher in the water than she is now. 

9. Downflooding is now effectively complete.


----------



## Varley

Are we now sure she had two electrically driven non-steerable props with rudder(s)?? None of the 'sources' seem to agree completely.

If the main generators were in separate compartments then just possible that she had some propulsion for a bit and the 'blackout' observed first was due to loss of lighting transformer or similar partial outage (although I think this highly unlikely).

Emergency generator should have provided steering until the way was off her. distance gone and u turn after what is assumed to be initial grounding does look wrong for vessel with no manoevring ability at all but who amongst us has such an experience or observation?.

The limits of "incline" at which the emergency generator must continue to operate is 22.5 degrees therefore as she was lying 'finally' I think lighting must have been batteries or 'UPS' fed by batteries.

David V


----------



## Compass Rose

Have a look at this link Gent's It show the AIS data and an explanation of what is occurring. It might help 

http://gcaptain.com/gcaptains-john-...maneuvers-of-the-costa-concordia-video/?37941


----------



## mcotting

Thank you, Compass Rose, for that. A very good explanation of what probably happened, except maybe she had stern thrusters too, which may have been used along with the bow thrusters to move the ship bodily to starboard till grounded. Evidently the thrusters were powered by the emergency generators??
Water depth looks too deep for her to have used her anchor to swing around.


----------



## Blackal

A good link - it explains a lot and seems to dispel a lot of conjecture.

Al


----------



## fred henderson

Varley said:


> Are we now sure she had two electrically driven non-steerable props with rudder(s)?? None of the 'sources' seem to agree completely.
> 
> David V


Costa Concordia has conventional props and twin rudders


----------



## Derek Roger

Mike S said:


> Derek......forgive me please but how did the Capt put her anywhere without engines and steering?
> Sorry to ask an awkward question!


Mike he would have emergency steering and there is the possibility that the emergency alternators which would be of substantial size on a vessel of this type could used to give some power to one prop ( she is a diesel electric drive )

Regarding the use of her anchors ; the Catain in one commmunication said he had dropped a pick . He later relented saying that he did not .

It is my opinion that if he had anchored the vessel would still aflloat and mostly upright . It was the grounding on the ledge where she now sits that caused the roll over .


----------



## howardws

Is it possible that bow and stern thrusters are powered by the generators that suppy the main propulsion motors and that these generators, or some of them, are in a different compartment to the propulsion motors?


----------



## twogrumpy

Lifeboats.
From the pix it looked as though each boat was swung out by a horizontal beam fore and aft, this being the case, how are the beams extended.
Am I out of date again in believing that lifeboat systems should be gravity drop, and that the lifeboat/raft provision on one side of the ship should be able to carry the full complement.

(Cloud)


----------



## 40907

Blackal said:


> A good link - it explains a lot and seems to dispel a lot of conjecture.
> 
> Al


A good link? It seems to me it is itself just conjecture - no better, in fact, than some which is taking place on this hallowed forum. I'd love to see confirmation somewhere from someone in the know about whether or not it would have been possible to use thrusters on auxiliary power.


----------



## CAPTAIN JEREMY

twogrumpy said:


> Lifeboats.
> From the pix it looked as though each boat was swung out by a horizontal beam fore and aft, this being the case, how are the beams extended.
> Am I out of date again in believing that lifeboat systems should be gravity drop, and that the lifeboat/raft provision on one side of the ship should be able to carry the full complement.
> 
> (Cloud)


The davit arms would be extended either by stored energy in a hydraulic ac***ulator, or by counterweights. In this day and age I would put my money on the hydraulic ac***ulator.

On Passenger ships, the requirement is for total lifesaving capacity of 125% of the maxiumum certified number of people that the ship can carry. All the passengers should be accomodated in life boats. The crew and the additional 25% capacity can be accomodated in life rafts, which are davit launched.


----------



## CAPTAIN JEREMY

Derek Roger said:


> Mike he would have emergency steering and there is the possibility that the emergency alternators which would be of substantial size on a vessel of this type could used to give some power to one prop ( she is a diesel electric drive )
> 
> Regarding the use of her anchors ; the Catain in one commmunication said he had dropped a pick . He later relented saying that he did not .
> 
> It is my opinion that if he had anchored the vessel would still aflloat and mostly upright . It was the grounding on the ledge where she now sits that caused the roll over .


I saw a photo taken by the divers of an anchor sitting on the bottom. 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pic...-the-Costa-Concordia-cruise-ship.html?image=1


----------



## Cisco

Reef Knot said:


> A good link? It seems to me it is itself just conjecture -


Agreed... pure conjecture...a handy link for the AIS data but I reckon after she stopped running to the NNEish she simply drifted onto the rocks.... the master had other things on his mind than stuffing around with thrusters.... his dinner appointment with the hot Moldavian frinstance... the need to plunder the ship's safe, tie his shoe laces, etc etc etc


----------



## barrinoz

Cisco said:


> Agreed... pure conjecture...a handy link for the AIS data but I reckon after she stopped running to the NNEish she simply drifted onto the rocks.... the master had other things on his mind than stuffing around with thrusters.... his dinner appointment with the hot Moldavian frinstance... the need to plunder the ship's safe, tie his shoe laces, etc etc etc


Nice one, Cisco. I hope the experts on other threads are reading this one.
barrinoz.


----------



## chadburn

howardws said:


> Is it possible that bow and stern thrusters are powered by the generators that suppy the main propulsion motors and that these generators, or some of them, are in a different compartment to the propulsion motors?


Like yourself Howard I am curious about the powersource for the thrusters in particlar the Bow Thruster, at one time they had their own power supply.


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett

She appears from the published sketches to have had three bow thrusters and also (not quite clear from the sketch) two stern thrusters. I would expect these to be driven by electric motors powered from the main propulsion generators - at least that would seem the logical way to do it.


----------



## makko

Gennies are usually in separate compartments. Main propulsion units are not. The thrusters use a LOT of power and are fed from the main bus. Arriving to port, the Barber Priam (large RoRo) had five gennies on the board, a little over 8MW! I shudder to think the power requirement docking a large cruise vessel! SWANSEA CHIEF, where are you Tim when we need you!
Rgds.
Dave


----------



## Varley

makko said:


> Gennies are usually in separate compartments. Main propulsion units are not.
> 
> Dave I agree with Andrew,
> 
> On a diesel electric vessel (are we all agreed on this now?) thrusters would share same power source as main props. She may not even have "auxiliary" diesel alternators as such with the port load sufficient to run a "propulsion" generator at an economic load.
> 
> Latest transcripts seem to confirm she had no "propulsion" supply very soon after first grounding. I do wonder why at least some of the propulsion generators were not in a seperate compartment, if not to contend with flooding then for fire - a higher risk. Perhaps they were and the hull damage simply broached the lot.
> 
> David V


----------



## NoR

I posted on the other thread a couple of tonnage comparisons:

QE1 83,000 tons displacement 83,000 tons Gross
Costa Concordia 52,000 " " " "

A pretty stark comparison, shows how things have changed in sixty (seventy ?) odd years. I think I'd feel safer on the QE1 for all sorts of reasons and not just to do with stability and construction.


----------



## chadburn

It's curious that on his approach that the "fin" was not damaged and bearing in mind your combined knowledge of this vessel and it's elect/mech layout, would her Master knowing that he was too close give the Bow Thruster's a jab to bring the Bow quickly over to Starboard which would have caused the Stern behind the "fin" to "Sniff the Bank"? (as it use to be called). I left the Merch in 1980 when those that had Bow Thruster's usually retro- fitted had their own diesel engined power plant.


----------



## chadburn

My previouus refer's to the possible? immediatly prior to the "sniffing" and loss of power.


----------



## CAPTAIN JEREMY

makko said:


> Gennies are usually in separate compartments. Main propulsion units are not. The thrusters use a LOT of power and are fed from the main bus. Arriving to port, the Barber Priam (large RoRo) had five gennies on the board, a little over 8MW! I shudder to think the power requirement docking a large cruise vessel! SWANSEA CHIEF, where are you Tim when we need you!
> Rgds.
> Dave


On the diesel electric cruise ships that I have commanded, when on standby all the generators were locked on line so the power management system wouldn't shut them down due to there being low power usage. I know that on one of the sister ships, the captain and chief thought that they could save fuel by not having all of the generators running and relying on the power management system to start another generator if it was required. As they passed the breakwater entering one port, the bow thruster drive motor was started, and all the lights went out!!


----------



## robert the bruce

Mike S has hit on a subject that appears to be irrelevant, the engineers. The engine room is a massive open area, and at the other side of those steel plates, well below the water line, is a formidable pressure. God help any engineer, right down below, repairing a piece of equipment close to the hull. I can remember on many occasions, in thick fog, when the telegraph would ring to dead slow, we would glance at each other. What is going on up there?


----------



## randcmackenzie

chadburn said:


> It's curious that on his approach that the "fin" was not damaged and bearing in mind your combined knowledge of this vessel and it's elect/mech layout, would her Master knowing that he was too close give the Bow Thruster's a jab to bring the Bow quickly over to Starboard which would have caused the Stern behind the "fin" to "Sniff the Bank"? (as it use to be called). I left the Merch in 1980 when those that had Bow Thruster's usually retro- fitted had their own diesel engined power plant.


Hello Chadburn,

A bow thruster at anything over a knot or so ahead will do nothing at all.

B/R


----------



## jim garnett

*Wisdom*



twogrumpy said:


> I quickly got bored withthe crud content, and would rather deal with engineers as I find on the whole they know what they are talking about.
> (Applause)


In 84 years i have learned two things that have stood me in good stead.
1.Never argue with idiots
2.Don't take yourself too seriously.
Jim Garnett


----------



## CAPTAIN JEREMY

randcmackenzie said:


> Hello Chadburn,
> 
> A bow thruster at anything over a knot or so ahead will do nothing at all.
> 
> B/R


On my ship, the bow thruster is effective up to about 4 knots


----------



## randcmackenzie

CAPTAIN JEREMY said:


> On my ship, the bow thruster is effective up to about 4 knots


I'll take your word for it Jeremy, in my limited experience there was almost no effect if moving ahead - fine lined container ship with relatively low powered thruster - about 1000 hp.

Also handled a couple of tankers with one for STS tandem berthing.

I was dying to give it a go, but there was no reason to, they both came in on rails.

B/R.


----------



## chadburn

Thank you for your answer's re Bow Thruster's and their limitations


----------



## 40907

jim garnett said:


> In 84 years i have learned two things that have stood me in good stead.
> 1.Never argue with idiots
> 2.Don't take yourself too seriously.
> Jim Garnett


Aye, Jim, good points. The reason I don't argue with idiots is passers-by will say "Look, two idiots arguing!"


----------



## double acting

Confusis, he say, never argue with a woman or a wire rope


----------

