NavList:

   

Reply

Why a gash 16% of the ship's length should sink her puzzles me, and I hope 
will eventually be answered. As I recall, the reason the Titanic went down 
was her watertight bulkheads went only halfway up the vertical span of the 
hull, so when one compartment filled, the water spilled into the next and so 
on. 

It also seems possible that the Concordia may have been sinking level and 
listed only when she landed on the sloped seabed.

Hewitt

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 25, 2012, at 7:27 AM, Geoffrey Kolbe  wrote:

> At 14:13 25/01/2012, you wrote:
> 
>> Lots of excellent analysis from the list.
>> 
>> The ship should also be analyzed as to why it couldn't sustain a rip in the 
hull and stay afloat. An excessively high center of gravity by design may 
have compromised the ships stability. Accidents still happen even with fail 
safe devises and well trained crew in place so naval architecture needs to 
keep up to reduce the consequences of groundings, collisions, and acts of war 
.
>> 
>> Greg Rudzinski
> 
> Aren't double hulls de rigueur in tankers these days? I guess an actuary 
does the sums and figures the cost of putting in a double hull against the 
risk of the oil getting out and causing vast amounts of compensation 
liability as it spreads itself about. Then there is the cost putting a double 
hull in a cruise ship against the compensation on some people dying if the 
single hull loses integrity due to something or other. Hmm, tough one...
> 
> Actuary - definition: someone who finds accountancy too exciting.
> 
> Geoffrey Kolbe
> 
> 
> 
> 

   

Reply