Cruise Ship Disaster - Storys On Television

Anyone watched the Discovery Channel Special Inside the Concordia? I just turned it on half way threw where they are talking about the life rafts and how they do not have lights inside them strangely. This Show may become invaluable for prepping with all the first hand accounts and videos and may change how we decide to prep.

I did watch the show from beginning to end. It was very enlightening.

Personally I am not very much of a Cruise Ship person, but that is just me.

The show left me with a LOT of food for thought, and oddly a lot of assurances about the safety that is built into the ships. For me the fact that there were plenty of lifeboats on the ship was a great fact in my mind. Regrettably, because the ship was listing so far to one side the boats on the high side of the boat could not deploy, but in the open ocean the boat would just release the boats as it sank into the ocean and leaving the boats to float, kind of like a floating dry dock that releases a boat by lowering into the water.


The show left me with the affirmation that a flashlight even the smallest of ones would have been invaluable. The lights went out twice, once when the boat hit the rocks, and again when it ran aground. Having food or snacks or anything like that was not really needed as they were not far out to sea.

The type of issues that the boat had were pretty simple, there was not fire, no smoke, no rapid catastrophe. While everything happened in a short time there was no sudden sinking or snapping of the ship. The necessary equipment list for this disaster I see as a flashlight, important documents, CC Cards, and maybe (and an extreme maybe) a spare air tank. Heck if the captain and crew had been honest and had a moment of forethought, this could have been a textbook scenario.

It is my understanding that there are RAPID changes happening in the maritime regulations requiring lifeboat drills to happen before the ship even leaves the port and not 24 hours as before.

It would be nice to see the cruise ships grow more understanding to people who wish to carry more preparedness equipment on the ships, but I don't really see that happening.

I didn't follow the event as it happened and had not heard much about it. I flipped the channel over and watched a few minutes of it after you posted. They were 100 yards from shore according to what I saw. Jump off boat, swim to shore. Any further and I'd go with jump off boat, use clothes as flotation device as taught to me in boot camp (Navy), float to shore.

Like I said, I only watched a few minutes of it. What were the extenuating circumstances that made it much harder than that? Mind you the water would have been cold, but it's only 100 yards or so.

100 yards in 59 degree water would be a painful swim, but it sure beats going down with the ship.

What I found most interesting about the show is how it explained how the wind saved the day.

Earlier reports through the Captain's attorney made it sound like he did something extraordinary to turn the ship and run it ashore.

So it would appear that the Captain is a liar and a coward.

At 3:50, a woman says, "Turn the camera off."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCQppWMJrp4

In all life events, I will take demands like that as my cue to continue filming. I missed the filming of my daughter exiting her mother's womb because some silly nurse blurted out, "No, don't film that." I was so exhausted and nervous that I didn't film, and the moment passed, darn it.

OK, so experts were able to track the course of the Concordia by using the AIS (Automated Identification System), which provides plotting information in real time. Does anybody know if the data from the AIS is available to the public? If so, what software/hardware do I need?

ireckon:

I would think the real time tracking would be off limits to the general public. Probably for the same reasons that Real time tracking of planes locations are not available to the public. While departure and arrival times are real time and tracked, the exact whereabouts of the plane is not reported.

Tyber

The hardest part, I think, would be the mental aspect. From the video clips I saw, the leap looked like about 30 feet down into darkness and cold water, during chaos and people screaming. Even when the ship deck sunk closer to the water, there still was the mental challenge of knowing you'd be completely on your own. Further, I imagine almost everybody there had a companion, quite possibly a child. My companions would need me, and they would not have taken that leap.

Anyway, would you need clothes for flotation when you have the life vest? That's not a rhetorical question. I actually don't know. In the videos, everybody had on a life vest.

One gets the impression that most of the fatalities occurred to people who were trapped or stayed below deck for one reason or another. Percentage wise, most of the passengers did evacuate successfully. It doesn't seem that leaving the ship, once you had reached an open deck, was the issue.

Life vests in the US are supposed to have 20 pounds or more of buoyancy and are able to turn a adult, floating face down, over and support them.

I would be very cautious about leaping fifty feet (or even a shorter distance) into unknown water, especially in the dark. It would be just my luck to hit a rock, which at that distance would likely result in a serious injury or worse.

I came back and watched the show after I had DVR'ed it. It does indeed look like pretty much everyone had life vests on. That would rule out the need for using clothing for flotation.

30 feet may be a decent fall into unknown water, but I'd really like to think I would find a way to get into the water and get my folks to safety. Staying with the sinking ship is generally not going to give you a very high probability of survival.

What were the extenuating circumstances that made it much harder than that? Mind you the water would have been cold, but it's only 100 yards or so.

Exactly what I was wondering.

Lots of elderly people on a cruise. Right now I might be able to pulling off stunts like 30 feet jumps and 100 yard swims in 59F water, but I'm not sure how well I'll be able to do that in 40 years.

And good heavens forbid I'll spend that kind of money on a cruise when there's some fun skiing to be done! At least not for the next 30 years or so (hopefully...)

There's an oft quoted statistic that says a 50 year old man has only a 50% chance of surviving a 50 yard swim in 50 degree water.

Not sure where it comes from, but swimming in really cold water is unbelievably painful - and yes, I do one or two polar bear swims in the Atlantic each winter, so I know what I'm talking about! (This year wans't so bad. But some years, oh boy!) I've gone out in 36 degree water in a drysuit with insulating garments underneath, and that was no picnic to my hands, toes, and face!

I wouldn't be so cavelier about swimming to shore in cold water. . .

I agree about the hazards of swimming in cold water. Remember that the ship was not in danger of sinking;it was grounded. Jumping into the water would not have been a smart move.

I have done some scuba diving in 36 degree water. I have vivid memories of suiting up in an insulated drysuit. Just before we got in the water, boiling hot water was poured into our gloves which we then donned, plunging into the water immediately. The dive was over when our hands got so cold we could no longer take notes or sketch - typically about 40 minutes. Cold water is not trivial.

As another diver, I can confirm this. I can't really bear cold water dives. Heck, after an hour or so I can start shivering even in shallow 80F/27C water. There's a lot of variables involved. Age, weight, gear, time, depth, training, fitness level, etc. can all determine if your stay in the water will be somewhat pleasant -- or a miserable bone-rattling shake-a-thon.

So I really can't say that those unfortunate folk should've just struck out in unknown waters in the dark.

-Danger of life boats... The life boats had motors, and the many life boats would not see you, nor would they have an obligation to see you.

-Any travel companions? They'd probably need you assuming they won't/can't jump. Jumping and saving myself while my family perished would not be an option for me.

-No turning back once you jump, you're on your own.

Jesselp,

There is nothing cavalier about my comment. Don't assume that others' comments are pulled out of thin air with no experience behind them. If you want to compare cold water dive logs...

I have been a certified PADI diver since 1981. I live in Illinois. I have SCUBA dived under ice many times using dry-suits, and dozens of 7mm wet-suit dives in water where I should have been wearing a dry-suit. Regardless of the time of year, the only kind of water in Illinois for SCUBA diving is cold water.

Cold water = pain, stinging, muscle cramping pain. It literally takes your breath, strength and coordination away almost instantly.

A 100 yard swim in 59 degree water would have been a harrowing ordeal. I would bet it would have been nearly impossible without life jackets for most people, even under age 50, had there been any sort of cross current. Cold water is a real killer.

I would have been terrified to jump, just worrying about landing on a rock, and breaking bones, let alone dealing with the cold water.

But given the alternative of waiting on a rolling/sinking ship, with no prospect of lifeboat rescue, I probably would have reluctantly opted for the water, given close proximity to shore.

BTW, I logged about 10 hours of diving in Turks & Caicos last week. The water was a balmy 79 degrees. I was shivering cold after each dive even wearing a wet suit. I was happy to be back on the boat in the warm sun after each dive.

Another thing is if you didn't know the water temperature you might not want to risk it not knowing how cold it was. Now, if I had been in that situation and knew the water was 59 degrees I probably would have gone for it (assuming I was traveling by myself) unless the current looked strong or there was no safe way to get to the water without risking serious injury...I swim in low 60s water (no wetsuit) pretty regularly in the summer, up to a mile or more (parallel to the beach, not very far out) so I would be pretty confident of my ability to make a 100 yard swim in those conditions. Not knowing the water temp would be different.

Actually, if shore--and a coastal town/village--was so close by like the Costa Concordia case, I think waiting for rescue onboard the ship would maximize your survival chances even if the ship were slowly sinking/listing. If things were happening much faster--including a fast moving onboard fire--well, then things get complicated in a hurry and getting into the water could very well be the safest place.

Remember that with such massive cruise liners nowadays, they are designed so that the first/best option in a shipboard emergency is to use the ship itself as the lifeboat. If they can, they want to keep everyone onboard because the overall risk and difficulty in moving that many people will "likely" result in more injuries and deaths--in general--than if they simply stayed on the ship.

One thing I've been curious about is whether the Costa Concordia would have turned on its side if it had been in deeper water? I thought that normally, a hull breach and the arrangement of the watertight compartments shouldn't cause the ship to turn dramatically on its side like that. So maybe the shape of the bottom of the hull pressing on the shallow reef is what pushed it over? I have no idea, but I was just wondering if proximity to shore was actually unlucky in this case because it flipped the ship and forced everyone to abandon ship instead of staying onboard? Just some idle conjecture.

The expert's on the show were convinced that had the ship remained in deeper water, it would have rolled and sunk. The hull damage was too extensive for the ship to remain floating for very long. Water was pouring in by the ton and too many flood compartments were damaged for the 'ship-as-a-lifeboat' concept to have been viable.

Anyone below deck would have been in trouble. Casualties would have been 'Titanic-like' had this played out in deep water, which was less than 100' feet from where they ran aground. The margin between this scenario and total disaster was less than 100'.

The wind pushing the ship aground is believed to have saved hundreds of lives and maybe even most of the lives on-board.

I can't remember if I heard this here or in the video: Captains will cruise close to land as long as possible, instead of zooming out to deep sea. They'll do this because the view out there is rather boring (all water).

I would like to see cruise ships change this policy as a result of this disaster. I don't want captains merely being more careful while cruising near the shore. I would prefer if the captain zooms out to sea as soon as possible, and only remain this close to shore if necessary for docking.

It turns out some people did jump from the ship into the water. Here is a video captured from a helicopter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucxfdfDzTvY



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/16/british-survivors-recall-costa-concordia

Knowing how high these cruise ships are above the waterline, if you're at the rail and you end up about level with the sea, then that ship is in a lot of trouble!

Here's a question for any members who have practiced abandoning ship in the service might have any insight into--can you jump 20 or more feet into the water without the force of the water ripping your floation vest off? I'm talking about the big, padded type that your typical cruise ship passenger has. With your typical feet-first jump, I could easily imagine many people just squirting out from their vest when they hit the water if the straps aren't tight or else the straps themselves ripping out at the seams.