Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Hawkmoon on September 09, 2019, 06:01:00 PM
-
https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2019/09/09/four-crew-members-missing-after-cargo-ship-overturns-of-georgia-coast/
Car carrier ship capsizes -- in the harbor. Makes you wonder how the thing was ever certified as safe to go to sea. I imagine the NTSB and the Coast Guard will be looking at how it was loaded and whether it was overloaded.
-
Engineering, schmengineering.
I'm a firm believer in trusting my instincts.
If it don't look safe, it ain't safe.
Becau$e $ooner or later, $omeone's going to pu$h the limit$.
Adverently or inadvertently.
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/cargo-ship-28136443.jpg)
(https://www.ncl.com/sites/default/files/900x312-Upsell_Escape_110315.jpg)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbswan.org%2Fimg%2Ftitle%2Fproduct_bloat.jpg&hash=5c1e215160c29c74bec83df6bd43f9c1ac30ccd1)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwpmedia.news.nationalpost.com%2F2012%2F01%2Fship-21.jpg%3Fw%3D620%26amp%3Bh%3D412&hash=cea3731c003eac8c80bf28ea83df1c9c736a6902)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/XihzVVdNKDw/maxresdefault.jpg)
Insurance is cheap. Space on board isn't.
Terry, 230RN
-
Pirate salvage mission. When do we leave?
-
Engineering, schmengineering.
I'm a firm believer in trusting my instincts.
If it don't look safe, it ain't safe.
...
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwpmedia.news.nationalpost.com%2F2012%2F01%2Fship-21.jpg%3Fw%3D620%26amp%3Bh%3D412&hash=cea3731c003eac8c80bf28ea83df1c9c736a6902)
Your fourth photo doesn't really belong in this discussion. That one is the Costa Concordia, which didn't capsize due to being topheavy, it opened a huge gash below the water line when it ran over a rock. Properly speaking, it sank -- but it was in shallow enough water that it hit bottom and then tilted over before it could be completely submerged.
There was in interesting video on the raising of the Costa Condcordia, for those who find such things interesting.
-
Your fourth photo doesn't really belong in this discussion. That one is the Costa Concordia, which didn't capsize due to being topheavy, it opened a huge gash below the water line when it ran over a rock. Properly speaking, it sank -- but it was in shallow enough water that it hit bottom and then tilted over before it could be completely submerged.
There was in interesting video on the raising of the Costa Condcordia, for those who find such things interesting.
I knew that. Just a good photo in a quick look. I actually followed the "dislodgement" of that ship and its towing away with the pontoons at the time. I'm pretty familiar with it.
So quit being a shipwreck nazi. :rofl:
Terry, :D
-
Costa Concordia story: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=raising+costa+concordia
Take your pick, from the 1:44 time lapse of raising the hulk, to any of several full-length documentaries.
-
Looks like they got the last 4 crew out.
Nice to have a happy ending to something in the news for once.
-
And there's always someone with an idea for a super-ship trying to get funding for it.
Last one I heard of was what was to be able to fit the population of a small city on a cruise ship that had a deck big enough to land an airliner of some size.
It was big enough to have it's own marina.
And it was supposed to be built on top of many huge barges. It was also immensely tall
Now I'm no nautical engineer but based on the concept art I saw if it got even slightly cross-wise in a storm it would break apart or roll over.
Found it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Ship
Since it has not been built I have to assume the idea did not find much favor.
-
Not to be [too much of a] jerk to Terry, but that is bollocks.
The math on ship stability is not that complicated, VERY well known and well validated. It's not black magic. This case, like pretty much every other case of calm weather capsizing in the last 200 years, is going to be either operator error in inputting info into the stability computer and not checking it, or operator laziness in not actually running the stability calculations.
I would point out that your scary loaded photos are ships running just fine, and it appears that your accident photos have all taken on water, and not capsized, as evidence that your instincts aren't the way to go here.
-
Ahhhh.... =D
-
Not to be [too much of a] jerk to Terry, but that is bollocks.
The math on ship stability is not that complicated, VERY well known and well validated. It's not black magic. This case, like pretty much every other case of calm weather capsizing in the last 200 years, is going to be either operator error in inputting info into the stability computer and not checking it, or operator laziness in not actually running the stability calculations.
I would point out that your scary loaded photos are ships running just fine, and it appears that your accident photos have all taken on water, and not capsized, as evidence that your instincts aren't the way to go here.
GTFO with your facts man! We don’t do facts here...just outrage and conjecture!!
-
The trouble is, some things which are assumed to be facts aren't.
I realize there are methods to calculate load placement in aircraft, as well as fuel needed for a given trip, as well as a need to check lubrication of certain jack screws on the plane's rudders and elevators.
Which get screwed up, resulting in the ground gaining altitude uncontrollably.
So....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZWw-RY5p28
Partly relevant, take your pick. Note especially how many "improvements" are made only after a disaster or accident occurs. Anyone who believes that all possible contingencies have been considered and no further unseen Murphy Incidents are possible is naive.
I was amused to find that in construction of one of the later "luxury plus" cruise ships, great care was taken regarding the amount of Carerra Marble that could be used in the ultra-luxurious top level apartments.
I also note that a lot of the ships' stability is achieved by dynamic means... either jet thrusters or hydrodynamic planes to counter any side thrusts on the ship including wind thrusts hitting the "sail area" as well as wave action.*
The trouble is, dynamic stabilization methods presume that there is power to operate them, and sometimes that the ship is moving in the first place.
Obviously, designing a ship to be immune to the very rare occurence of a 25 ft rogue wave (see video) would be uneconomical, but it's good to keep in mind that everything that tends to overbalance the ship increases the risk of capsizing.
And to assume that every jot and tittle of information is being correctly entered into the design calculations in the first place is also naive. We have whole threads in the "metric versus imperial" category where gross errors were made and not "caught" by anybody.
Sorry, but my "instincts" start to take over when I see ten or fifteen floors of cabins above the main deck. No amount of assurances of delicate balancing of the loads (like how much Carrera Marble you can use on the stairs) by careful calculation will assuage my suspicions. Especially with respect to the extra "sail area" of that extra height.
Or calculations of where to put those two extra cars on a cargo ship. (Also, see video.)
After all, the more delicate the balancing act, the more likely one is to approach tipover points.
And you know, the damned things do tip over... even while docked.
It's like "don't stand up in a canoe."
"Well then, exactly how high can I rise before capsizing?"
"Let's see.... you're six feet tall, but the weight of your beard is only 5 foot above the deck, so we'll enter 3 grams into the beard weight dialog box in the computer..."
And the beard actually weighed 3 ounces, not 3 grams...
A "fact" in error.
Terry, =D
* I don't know if they still use giant gyroscopes.
-
Sigh, I was going to Fisk that whole post 'ala a Monsterhunter blog, but that seems unnecessarily rude to a guy I like.
Suffice to say, that entire post is inaccurate and the video is History Channel "Aliens" level drama.
As for your instincts, you have no idea where the center of gravity is, where the center of buoyancy is, how much it displaces, it's righting moment, the metacentric height, how much free surface it has, or even it's tonnage. Why do you think your instincts are worth listening to? Jenny McCarthy thinks her instincts on vaccines are spot on, too.
I'll say it again. Ships don't capsize without humans doing something the manual specifically says not to. Even then it usually takes gross negligence, or negligence coupled with very, very rare weather events. I study read the case studies of these things professionally.
I apologize if I seem to be taking this overly seriously, but it really bugs me to see people look at verifiable facts and be "Nah, it just feels wrong."
ETA:
One direct rebuttal, just because it's important:
I also note that a lot of the ships' stability is achieved by dynamic means... either jet thrusters or hydrodynamic planes to counter any side thrusts on the ship including wind thrusts hitting the "sail area" as well as wave action.*
This is untrue. Active stability systems are allowed to be fitted for comfort and speed/economy, but the ship must meet the standards without power applied to them. (There are actually standards for how much damage you have to assume will happen and the ship will remain stable), otherwise the vessel won't meet classification standards, can't come into most ports, and is nigh on uninsurable. At least that's how the American Bureau of Shipping classifications work.
-
OK.
The best laid plans...
-
For future trivia, they do still use gyros on active stability systems, but they've actually gotten smaller than they used to be. With electomechanical and hydraulic systems running the underwater stablizers you don't need gyro's with as much angular momentum, so they got smaller.
-
I love a good fisking!
-
It's just that one side has a high reliance on the numbers, which is OK as far as it goes, and the other side has a high reliance on what looks right, which is also OK as far as it goes.
The latter side also realizes that "$ooner or later, $omeone's going to pu$h the limit$."
The "$omeone" doesn't have to be the engineer.
So, since apparently irreconcilable differences in outlook exist, there was no point in going further with this.
OK?
Terry, 230RN
-
Based on nothing but the available photos, it looks like they ran aground, shifted the load, it rolled more when the tide went out, then rolled the rest of the way when the tide came in.
However I haven't seen anyone say it actually ran aground, it just doesn't look to be in very deep water...
-
I read that there are over 4000 cars on board. Are they tied down enough such that they will remain in place when rolled 90 degrees, or are they all in a big pile on the downward side now?
-
Who farted? :old:
-
Don't drink and drive
Boozed-up captain rams cargo ship into bridge in Busan
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/boozed-up-captain-rams-cargo-ship-into-bridge-in-busan
(https://www.straitstimes.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_pictrure_780x520_/public/articles/2019/03/02/ST_20190302_XCAPTAIN_4661573.jpg?itok=TLDEYQC-×tamp=1551460808)
-
It's not enough that they hit bridges all the time, now they're going after the on-ramps. Sheesh !
There were no injuries in the accident, Yonhap reported, but the ship's captain allegedly tried to flee the scene.
Had a Master's License for "Any vessel, any waters, any on-ramp, any vodka."
Terry
-
Don't drink and drive
Boozed-up captain rams cargo ship into bridge in Busan
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/boozed-up-captain-rams-cargo-ship-into-bridge-in-busan
(https://www.straitstimes.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_pictrure_780x520_/public/articles/2019/03/02/ST_20190302_XCAPTAIN_4661573.jpg?itok=TLDEYQC-×tamp=1551460808)
They're gonna need some big jersey barriers.
-
Based on nothing but the available photos, it looks like they ran aground, shifted the load, it rolled more when the tide went out, then rolled the rest of the way when the tide came in.
However I haven't seen anyone say it actually ran aground, it just doesn't look to be in very deep water...
There were early reports of a fire on board. We're wondering if they got caught up fighting the fire and failed to dewater and/or counter ballast. MTS records show they capsized right after another RO/RO carrier passed them, so upset CG due to fire fighting +wake+ a *expletive deleted*it ton of free surface on a car deck = capsize.
We'll see what the USCG has to say.
-
There were early reports of a fire on board. We're wondering if they got caught up fighting the fire and failed to dewater and/or counter ballast. MTS records show they capsized right after another RO/RO carrier passed them, so upset CG due to fire fighting +wake+ a *expletive deleted*it ton of free surface on a car deck = capsize.
We'll see what the USCG has to say.
Dewatering is a very important part of fighting a shipboard fire. We had a carrier that had a fire on the O3 level (right below the flight deck) and the amount of water put about a 7-8 degree list on the boat at the pier. There was some concern it may have tried to lay over if it went much further.
bob
-
Dewatering is a very important part of fighting a shipboard fire. We had a carrier that had a fire on the O3 level (right below the flight deck) and the amount of water put about a 7-8 degree list on the boat at the pier. There was some concern it may have tried to lay over if it went much further.
bob
Do tell [popcorn]
=D
-
Do tell [popcorn]
=D
I've already mentioned the Normandie.
-
Dewatering is a very important part of fighting a shipboard fire. We had a carrier that had a fire on the O3 level (right below the flight deck) and the amount of water put about a 7-8 degree list on the boat at the pier. There was some concern it may have tried to lay over if it went much further.
bob
Stupid question, as a guy who only rode around on boats (My ass Rides In Navy Equipment), do they not have automatic bilge pumps to accommodate that? Apples to oranges, but I recall fishing with my dad and his boat had a little port thing that would occasional shoot water out that got in through a slow leak on the outdrive. I'd have assumed they'd just have a scaled up version of that on larger ships.
-
Do tell [popcorn]
=D
USS Forrestal at Pier 12 in Norfolk. 3 days before leaving on a Med deployment, 10 July 1972. A *expletive deleted*bag Seaman on the Admirals staff set 3 fires, one below decks forward, one below decks aft and then one on the O3 level, in the Admirals cabin close to CIC. By the time the fire party was able to get to the O3 level the fire had gotten into the overhead cable runs and moved fore and aft. We fought the fire for about 12 hours, had to cut holes in the flight deck to stick nozzles through so we could pump water on it. OBAs quitting too soon, hoses failing, it was a cluster. There were no drainage holes between the knee knockers on the O3 level (they are standard now) so all of the water we were pumping in there stayed there. We took on a list, had tugs beside us to pull us out in the bay because the fire was getting very close to the magazines on the O3 level. GQ was called away about 0330 and because my GQ station was aft in hanger bay 3 I got to go forward and join the DC parties fighting the fire on the O3 level. That fire put us back in the yards for 3 months, all of our gear in CIC had to be replaced and when we came out of the yards we finished our deployment and did the next one. In all we did a little over 10 months on a Med deployment.
bob
eta: They pulled the brows about 0800, if you were on board you were a firefighter, if not you stayed on the pier and watched.
-
Stupid question, as a guy who only rode around on boats (My ass Rides In Navy Equipment), do they not have automatic bilge pumps to accommodate that? Apples to oranges, but I recall fishing with my dad and his boat had a little port thing that would occasional shoot water out that got in through a slow leak on the outdrive. I'd have assumed they'd just have a scaled up version of that on larger ships.
The big boats have big pumps but where this water was the only to get it out was for it to overflow the knee knockers and find a way down a ladder.
Knee knockers, actually more of mid shin destroyers but they are called knee knockers.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_-xu5XCv2qvM%2FSMLH3SUQU5I%2FAAAAAAAABIg%2FglfVlwAYFRE%2Fs400%2FIMG_6008_edited-1-for-web.jpg&hash=85de4e535898e0fe1c6b0eeb855c5c901fd24844)
bob
eta: IIRC after our fire every carrier had drains cut into the deck near one of the corners because the deck was the overhead of the hanger bay. That way it would drain to the hanger bay and over the side.
-
Stupid question, as a guy who only rode around on boats (My ass Rides In Navy Equipment), do they not have automatic bilge pumps to accommodate that? Apples to oranges, but I recall fishing with my dad and his boat had a little port thing that would occasional shoot water out that got in through a slow leak on the outdrive. I'd have assumed they'd just have a scaled up version of that on larger ships.
There are pumps, but they aren't automatic.
Also unlike many civilian (and military non-US Navy) ships don't have very big crews so someone has to remember to turn them on, while doing all the other fire stuff.
On my boat, I have had a big note written on the top of my Damage Control board that said "DEWATER- T+5:00" to remind me and my first mate to call the engine room and start that process. That came from a Fire Drill After Action Review when the whole team realized that we had been pumping water into the hull for a notional 25 min to fight the fire.
Also, bilge pumps don't work if you loose generator power.
-
In 76, when I was in USN Boot Camp, ALL were taught Damage Control/Fire Fighting. You worked fire hose, shoring timbers and hull patches, Light Water, dry chemical and CO2 extinguishers, the works. While there may have been a fire team on board the bigger ships, EVERYONE was supposed to be able to do Damage Control in an emergency. My job during GQ or during Sea Duty was to be a Sound Powered Phone talker and to relay engine room status/messages to the bridge.
-
Repair 2A SCBA monkey.
DIET #2 nozzleman.
Main Battledress stretcher bearer.
Good times.
-
On subs every soul is a firefighter every soul is a damage control expert..
-
On a related note, Drachinifel put up a video on the USS Franklin fire
USS Franklin (CV-13) - What to do when everything is on fire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tJh-XkVyYA
-
It's just that one side has a high reliance on the numbers, which is OK as far as it goes, and the other side has a high reliance on what looks right, which is also OK as far as it goes.
The latter side also realizes that "$ooner or later, $omeone's going to pu$h the limit$."
The "$omeone" doesn't have to be the engineer.
So, since apparently irreconcilable differences in outlook exist, there was no point in going further with this.
OK?
Terry, 230RN
;/ ;/ ;/
-
Thanks Dogmush and BobR for the explanation.
-
;/ ;/ ;/
Yeah, there's a time where one should just take the "L" with grace.
-
On a related note, Drachinifel put up a video on the USS Franklin fire
USS Franklin (CV-13) - What to do when everything is on fire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tJh-XkVyYA
Thank you, that was an hour well spent. =)
-
I'll take the "L" expecially since apparently the dynamic stabilization systems are not part of the initial stabilization calculations as I had expected, but the darned things still tip over. So something, somewhere, is not being considered or is mistaken.
So, in light of the greater wisdom of the APS community, I apologize for expressing my concern over ship stabilization based on the idea that "if it don't look safe, it ain't safe."
That was apparently wrong in terms of the engineering calculations, but apparently some people (not necessarily the engineers or designers) do push the loading too far every once in a while.
So, gentlemen, forgive me.
Terry, 230RN
-
I'll take the "L" expecially since apparently the dynamic stabilization systems are not part of the initial stabilization calculations as I had expected, but the darned things still tip over. So something, somewhere, is not being considered or is mistaken.
So, in light of the greater wisdom of the APS community, I apologize for expressing my concern over ship stabilization based on the idea that "if it don't look safe, it ain't safe."
That was apparently wrong in terms of the engineering calculations, but apparently some people (not necessarily the engineers or designers) do push the loading too far every once in a while.
So, gentlemen, forgive me.
Terry, 230RN
Because nobody would ever push anything past it's design limitations..... ;/
Driving to the grocery store is inherently safe. It's all the jackoffs around you pushing their vehicles past their design limitations that make it dangerous....
-
If anyone cares she is still there.
-
If anyone cares she is still there.
I'm sure the harbormaster is VERY happy.