Officers were also heard shouting contradictory instructions as the disaster unfolded.
The black box identified him (=captain) shouting ‘hard to port!’ just before the liner struck a rock in calm waters close to the Italian island of Giglio.
At the same time his second in command yells ‘hard to starboard!’.
He may have been right. If the ship struck anywhere aft of about a quarter of its length "Hard a port" might have saved it. When a ship turns it does so by kicking the stern to the opposite direction. (That's because it has a rudder and doesn't steer by front wheels.)
Right, ChrisVJ. Hard a port might just maybe have given him a chance to miss the rocks. But IIRC doing that would have left him pointing straight at the shore, at speed and with insufficient room to escape with a hard a starboard call. The die had already been cast when they approached the first rock outcropping.
Location: A Whilom nimble brain. With 31 million posts.
Age: 73
Posts: 3,381
Don't know about that.
'Captain Smith . . .' the harbormaster asked questioningly, 'wasn't the Titanic long and thin when you sailed?'
Quote:
He may have been right. If the ship struck anywhere aft of about a quarter of its length "Hard a port" might have saved it. When a ship turns it does so by kicking the stern to the opposite direction. (That's because it has a rudder and doesn't steer by front wheels.)
The same as the Titanic. It would have been better to hit it head on than gliding by the ice berg.
for Titanic, yes, with the watertight compartments flooded one too many. The cruise ship was very different I guess (in construction?) - although it wouldn't have listed maybe then.
'Captain Smith . . .' the harbormaster asked questioningly, 'wasn't the Titanic long and thin when you sailed?'
Although if Capt Smith and his ship had lasted long enough for the harbourmaster to set eyes upon them, that would have been a marked improvement on what did happen...
has it been calculated (or how it's done) anywhere how fast/slow the Concordia would have sunk with such a hole in the hull? I mean, there were some videos with water in the corridors, but actually the main final damage was from listing, which was because it hit the rocks near the island? Not that it would mean much now, but with the captain claiming he's a hero it would be interesting to know how much time they would have had if they had stayed where they were. Assuming it was the captain's decision and not just wind and drift.
"for Titanic, yes, with the watertight compartments flooded one too many. The cruise ship was very different I guess (in construction?) - although it wouldn't have listed maybe then."
I was referring to this comment.
"Hard a port might just maybe have given him a chance to miss the rocks. But IIRC doing that would have left him pointing straight at the shore,"
If they had missed the rocks - and therefore not even holed the hull, they may well have run straight ahead into the shore as indicated by the person's post - not enough time to turn before hitting head on - but, that may not have holed anything, just put a dirty great dent in the front and probably injured quite a few people.
lomapaseo - I guess I mean the 'reached negative buoyancy' mainly - I meant how much time people would have had to evacuate while it would have still been possible for them to walk on the floors (more or less horisontal). And then, whether it would have sunk totally, if in deep water. Like filled up with water and go down.
