PDA

View Full Version : M/V SEWOL - South Korean ferry tragedy


airship
16th Apr 2014, 19:41
Somewhat surprised that someone else didn't already raise the subject (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27045512). :confused:

I'm only doing so because it would be quite scandalous if there was not a JB thread about it. They may only be "South Koreans" to some, but to me, they're the folks who manufactured my LG computer monitor, my LG microwave oven and even my 15 year old (GOLDSTAR as LG was known back then) "frost-free fridge-freezer. All of which have functioned perfectly without service / repair since new.

Plus, JetBlast is full of very experienced ex. mariners, at least as capable and/or knowledgeable as any of those in R&N when commenting on "aviation" matters... :ok:

"Properly-maintained and loaded" modern ferries operated by 1st World countries do not simply and suddenly "capsize and sink"...?! Looking at the photos of the capsized hull, my attention was drawn to the quite immaculate condition of the anti-fouling!

Caboclo
16th Apr 2014, 19:45
I've also noted the lack of probable cause given in any of the news articles. Nothing obvious, like Costa Concordia.

cavortingcheetah
16th Apr 2014, 19:47
Overloaded boats full of immigrants becoming shark fodder don't usually raise too much of a tear but two hundred and fifty school children create imaginations of grief which must be agonisingly dreadful for the parents.

Lonewolf_50
16th Apr 2014, 20:02
Somewhat surprised that someone else didn't already raise the subject (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27045512). :confused:
Glad you did. Sad for those folks, that water is chilly this time of year. :eek:I'm only doing so because it would be quite scandalous if there was not a JB thread about it.
I don't think the word scandalous means what you think it means. We don't all sit about scanning the worlds news feeds for Jet Blast fodder.
Plus, JetBlast is full of very experienced ex. mariners, at least as capable and/or knowledgeable as any of those in R&N when commenting on "aviation" matters... :ok:
Indeed. The sea is unforgiving of error, just as aviation is.
"Properly-maintained and loaded" modern ferries operated by 1st World countries do not simply and suddenly "capsize and sink"...?!
It took a few hours to capsize, but there is no question that this all went wrong rather quickly, in maritime terms.
Looking at the photos of the capsized hull, my attention was drawn to the quite immaculate condition of the anti-fouling! Indeed! Well maintained. :ok:

Hoping Pers, Captain Draper, mm43, or one of our maritime experts chimes in with some insight.

Some other notable passenger disasters in modern countries

128 souls lost: Greek cruise ship TSMS Lakonia sunk after fire on board off Madeira, Portugal, December 28, 1962
140 souls lost: Italian ferry Moby Prince collide with oil tanker, dense fog off Livorno, Tuscany, Italy, 1991
289 souls lost: A boat of clandestine immigrants sank near Portopalo, Italy, 1996
288 souls lost: SS Heraklion (Souda, Crete, Greece, 1966)
852 souls lost: MS Estonia (Baltic Sea, 1994)

The US Navy had a liberty launch accident back in the 80's, (70's?) a few dozen dead, when a bunch of sailors ashore in IIRC Spain ended up in the drink due to bad handling of small craft. Can't find a ref to it, but it got briefed on every ship I served on in terms of what the boat officer had to keep in mind when deciding on load limits and whether to make the run or not.

airship
16th Apr 2014, 20:13
It's Admiral Drapes, to you and me... ;)

cavortingcheetah, some (great?) minds think alike and pose similar questions perhaps...?! :(

Noah Zark.
16th Apr 2014, 21:01
It is indeed a terrible tragedy. As noted above, what could be seen of the upturned hull appeared to be in good fettle, and also the bow appeared undamaged.
The little worry creeping around the canyons of my brain is that apparently a few survivors have mentioned a big 'thump', and then the ship began to list. Simultaneously with this being reported, pictures from above the scene were being shown, and in the middle distance from the upturned ship was a submarine on the surface.
Obviously it is probably just there to try to help, but I couldn't help wondering if it was part of the accident.

tony draper
16th Apr 2014, 21:03
Well I did mention it first thing this morning elsewhere and posed the question What is it with Ferries? they do seem a particularly disaster prone mode of transport, disasters generally involving large loss of life.
This one seems a modern vessel, run by a modern first world country not some exe European ferry long past its sell by date hived off to some Red Sea fly by night ferry operator.
We just have to wait for more info.
:(

airship
16th Apr 2014, 21:07
Hmm, I think I'd be heading towards the higher side and getting out on deck - just in case. In theory, perhaps. In reality, many passengers would have been rapidly dis-orientated. Which way is "up" when you're in a confined space without an "exterior view"? And when the cabin, passageways etc. may be heavily encumbered by loose furniture and fittings? Or when the route "up to safety" might involve traversing "flooded" areas or compartments to some extent...?!

Even experienced pilots (airplanes) have been known to be insensitive to what were very great differences "to normal" in inclination / attitude of the airplane under some circumstances...?!

So what chance for self-loading (sea-freight)?

They don't usually make such announcements on ferries etc. : "Please remain seated until the aircraft has reached the stand and the doors are opened". And so far as obeying such instructions under normal circumstances, if the aircraft were to tilt very severely and "crash", then I'd recommend to all passengers (airplanes or ferries) to heed "their own survival instincts"...?! And not to rely very much on what's heard over the tannoy system. :ok:

Capetonian
16th Apr 2014, 21:15
An appalling tragedy. I would imagine that standards are very high in South Korea, not some crappy old ferry stuffed to the gunwales. No doubt the conspiracy theories will start ...... North Korean activity, but it's too far from the border and surely even they wouldn't hit such a soft target?

Akrotiri71
16th Apr 2014, 21:23
MV Sewol. Built in Hayashikane-Japan. Sailed on two vessels bulit in Japan. Most seaworthy.

I have sailed in three vessels, one bulit in Daewoo, two built in Samsung. All vessels most seaworthy.

I have spent 3 years in various S. Korean shipyards, and have found them to be very professional. I don't think the question of the seaworthiness of the vessel is in question.

From what I can glean from reports, the vessel has struck something, and sunk. My condolences to all the families effected.

airship
16th Apr 2014, 21:51
Capetonian, I don't believe that North korea are involved. Just yesterday or the day before, officials from North Korea's London embassy visited a local hair salon (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27045024): Salon poster prompts visit from N Korea embassy. How could our leader Kim Jong-un be wholly-occupied about his hair-style and at the same time sabotage a South Korean ferry...?!

From what I can glean from reports, the vessel has struck something, and sunk. I also read various articles suggesting similar (one in which the ferry apparently ran aground)...? But none of the photos I've seen yet show any damage to at least the forward portion of the hull. However, this photo shows a lot of "sub-20ft" containers stored on the fore-deck having broken free of their lashings:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/74266000/jpg/_74266356_1.jpg

Makes me wonder just how "well-secured" all the containers / HGV vehicles etc. carried on the main vehicle decks were...?!

And hopefully nothing to do with say (poor respect of crew operations / procedures) as in M/S Herald Of Free Enterprise in the English channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Herald_of_Free_Enterprise), or say (poor respect of crew operations / procedures combined with simple poor seamanship in bad-weather) as in M/S Estonia in the Baltic Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Estonia).

SpringHeeledJack
16th Apr 2014, 21:54
I read a report today that the passengers were told to stay below decks and perhaps being good conformist Koreans, they did as they were told and when things happened it was too quick and disorientating for any realistic egress. 300 school age kids dead……that's a horrible thing in itself. RIP :(



SHJ

500N
16th Apr 2014, 21:58
airship

I doubt you will see damage below the waterline
as the ship will keel over that way.

Capetonian
16th Apr 2014, 22:02
this photo shows a lot of "sub-20ft" containers stored on the fore-deck having broken free of their lashings:I don't think it's surprising that they've broken free of their lashings when the ship is listing at an angle of about 70 degrees. They've only shifted, if they'd broken free they'd have gone overboard.

I don't think casting aspersions on the maintenance, seaworthiness, or procedures in this case is justified.

tony draper
16th Apr 2014, 22:10
The Engine is liable to rip free of the bedding plates when they go over like that.:uhoh:

theclockworkorange
16th Apr 2014, 22:17
Totally tragic.

I was wondering myself if the disciplined korean ethic was a contributory factor in people doing exactly what they were told. Although The costa concordia footage showed similar inaction by passengers.

airship
16th Apr 2014, 22:26
I don't think casting aspersions on the maintenance, seaworthiness, or procedures in this case is justified.

What's left then? Bearing in mind that apparently the general sea conditions at the time were calm or at least benign for this size of vessel. Did she hit a mine, was she torpedoed? Did the C/E or someone else start pumping ballast from one side to another to better stabilise the vessel much earlier on? Went off-watch, the pump/s kept going and in her (perhaps lightly-loaded condition on this voyage) that was enough to precipitate a huge instability...?!

PS. SHJ, nothing's sure yet about the real number of fatalaties etc., so there is some hope. Surprisingly though (just like in the 3rd World), noone is apparently very sure about the exact numbers of passengers / crew actually embarked. What's 99% sure is that the passenger numbers did not exceed the maximum permissable. It was on an "internal voyage" after all.

PPS. Capetonian: I don't think it's surprising that they've broken free of their lashings when the ship is listing at an angle of about 70 degrees. They've only shifted, if they'd broken free they'd have gone overboard. Please say what you mean / mean what you say?! Just what are you saying, or meaning to say, or are you merely coming across as being "shifty"...?!

tony draper
16th Apr 2014, 23:47
I think the natural instinct of those in authority at a lower level and indeed what they are probably instructed to do when some thing unusual happens specially when there are large numbers of people involved, would be for them to tell everyone to stay exactly where they are and not to panic,then look upward for those above them in authority to tell them what to do next.
Things like this happen that fast the best laid plans ect ie report to your lifeboat station quickly go by the board.
No doubt someone will have to be blamed,we are a species who need someone to blame.
:(

TWT
17th Apr 2014, 00:02
Might be another 'uncharted rock' scenario.Seems to happen fairly regularly.

rh200
17th Apr 2014, 01:05
I think the first rule of an emergency is don't panic, and don't let the cattle panic. There is generally confusion when things go wrong for a particular time period until you can gather facts.

Hence the gravity of the situation may not be immidiatly obvious. It is entirely reasonable in a large modern ship that even if you are holed it should remain afloat and fairly stable for enough time to evacuate. The last thing you want is the situation getting made worse by masses just doing there own thing.

In this case it might have saved lives, but that not how it should work, it could easily have cost lives if things where different.

Its easy to be critical, but until all the facts are known. It has only just happened, and obvoiusly there has been a huge F$%^ up somewhere. Its early days, and the facts will change several times before they actually settle on "true fact".

500N
17th Apr 2014, 01:09
"It is entirely reasonable in a large modern ship that even if you are holed it should remain afloat and fairly stable for enough time to evacuate."

As long as the water tight doors are shut. Once water starts flowing,
it is amazing how quick it starts to lean and it only gets quicker.

John Hill
17th Apr 2014, 01:25
Vehicle ferries have a big problem if water gets on the vehicle deck and scuppers are inadequate.

Dushan
17th Apr 2014, 02:31
Who was the captain? Where is Schettino, now?

TWT
17th Apr 2014, 03:25
Any japes about 'Korea moves' would be in bad taste just now,considering the gravity of this event.

500N
17th Apr 2014, 03:47
Surprised at the lack of lifeboats from the ship. Obviously a few got launched
but when looking at the photos, are these lifeboats on the deck behind the railing ?

You'll have to scroll forward to photo No 23.

http://www.theage.com.au/photogallery/world/rescue-at-sea-south-korean-passenger-ship-in-distress-20140416-36sgm.html?aggregate=&selectedImage=2

parabellum
17th Apr 2014, 05:58
The first report I heard yesterday mentioned hitting a sand bank but it seems unlikely, to me, that a ship aground on a sand bank would go completely under. Didn't see the submarine in any pictures but there is probably little they could do by just being there?


Judging by the size of some of the cranes to be seen in Korean and Japanese ports they can probably lift the wreck, I imagine the families will want the bodies returned to them.

Gordy
17th Apr 2014, 06:39
Admiral Drapes is onto something:

I think the natural instinct of those in authority at a lower level and indeed what they are probably instructed to do when some thing unusual happens specially when there are large numbers of people involved, would be for them to tell everyone to stay exactly where they are and not to panic,then look upward for those above them in authority to tell them what to do next.

No doubt someone will have to be blamed,we are a species who need someone to blame.

Not a truer word said unfortunately

Blacksheep
17th Apr 2014, 07:27
All the photos show no-one on upper deck where all the life rafts are stowed, and all the life rafts still secured in position. It appears no evacuation plan was in operation. Those in the lower levels of the command chain should be working to a pre-arranged standard plan, not waiting around for higher ranks to tell them what to do.

After apparently hitting something and starting to list, surely the proper procedure would be to muster all souls on deck?

500N
17th Apr 2014, 07:35
Maybe as has been said, those in "ordered" societies don't take the initiative or step on senior toes. I hope that isn't the case.

Like you, I would have thought SOPS were muster on deck.

Re lifeboats, as per my previous question, it certainly looks like they
haven 't been used. I wonder what the situation is on the side that
is under water.

The other complicating factor is of course school kids with teachers and
possibly being told not to do anything without the teachers ????

Very sad if the numbers being talked about are true.

Mariner9
17th Apr 2014, 08:11
A collision with an underwater obstruction would normally result in damage to the bow area but there is no apparent damage visible there.

Too early to rule anything out at this stage however.

sitigeltfel
17th Apr 2014, 08:15
A collision with an underwater obstruction would normally result in damage to the bow area but there is no apparent damage visible there.

Newsreel footage shows considerable scuffing/witness marks on the bow bulb.

Mariner9
17th Apr 2014, 08:20
A vessel shouldn't sink due to scuffing.

If she'd hit something head on at full sea speed she would have sustained obvious damage to the bow area, which would have needed to extend back past the collision bulkhead to sink her.


The trim of an underway vessel due to "squat" could cause an obstruction to strike the keel area further aft, that remains a possibility I suppose.

SpringHeeledJack
17th Apr 2014, 08:23
Mabye she scuffed against 'something' and it was enough to cause her to list to the point that some of the heavier objects in the hold moved in unison and the list grew as water entered through various openings ?



SHJ

tony draper
17th Apr 2014, 08:39
According to Sky News just now all members of the crew except one got off safely, now that is a good thing for them but I suspect that is going to be looked at slightly askance.
:uhoh:

sitigeltfel
17th Apr 2014, 08:46
I was in Venice at the weekend and these behemoths were being towed by tugs through the Giudecca channel, solely to let the pax have a grandstand view of the city.


http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee201/sitigeltfel/DSC_0062_zps7e88f494.jpg (http://s231.photobucket.com/user/sitigeltfel/media/DSC_0062_zps7e88f494.jpg.html)

What could possibly go wrong :confused:

500N
17th Apr 2014, 08:48
Siti

I gather from something I read that this won't be the case in the future
as it raises the water level too much and causes flooding.

I think they said they are going to ban these ships from entering
and they will have to stay further out.

Akrotiri71
17th Apr 2014, 10:26
I saw one of those behemoths in Gruz, Dubrovnik last week. MSC Fantasia. Bloody humungous it was!

http://i61.tinypic.com/2u9lq8o.jpg

With a pax of up to 3,900 & a crew of +/- 1,313, getting all those to muster stations in an emergency would be a nightmare. Especially if the vessel was listing, reduced lighting etc.

I've done rescue training on various vessels when lighting was reduced, and although I knew the vessel quite well, it's very difficult to find your way around. Trying to do it on a vessel you're not familiar with, panic-stricken, would be an extreme challenge indeed.

My sincerest condolences to all those effected by the disaster in S. Korea.

SpringHeeledJack
17th Apr 2014, 11:00
I worked on a super size cruise liner for a short while that started and finished it's journey from Venice and it has to be said the view from the deck of La Serenissima was breathtaking, akin to floating lazily by on a balloon. That said the sight of these luxury blocks of flats going by the residents is understandably unpalatable other than for the merchants amongst them.

The large cruise ships have these ventral fins that keep them stable once out of shallow water, so little chance of them tipping over. I'm not so sure that the large ferries have these devices.



SHJ

mixture
17th Apr 2014, 11:01
I think they said they are going to ban these ships from entering
and they will have to stay further out.

I think they should ban those ships altogether .....:cool:

Ghastly things, I fail to see the attraction of being cooped up like cattle with 4000 other people, looking at nothing but water for 99% of the time and then being dumped en-masse at some unsuspecting city for a day or two before being rounded up and shuffled along to the next place.

Capetonian
17th Apr 2014, 11:14
A few years ago I had a holiday in Bermuda (not a place I'd rush back too). One of the less attractive features was the massives floating hotels that docked and dominated the skyline in the port. Then off come a few thousand garishly clad blobs, those who were too fat to walk were on those Skegway things, filling the restaurants and beaches.

I enjoy cruises and am intending to do a couple soon but on smaller vessels, to the Eastern Med and Baltic.

tony draper
17th Apr 2014, 11:23
Only ever been on one cruise ship and that was just to fettle their TV distribution system,what I recall is everybody spent the first day trying to figure out how to get back to their cabin from where they were working,twere just a maze of alleyways saloons dining rooms bars smoking rooms and stairs (I know,companion ways)

:uhoh:

500N
17th Apr 2014, 11:34
Mixture

"Ghastly things, I fail to see the attraction of being cooped up like cattle with 4000 other people, looking at nothing but water for 99% of the time and then being dumped en-masse at some unsuspecting city for a day or two before being rounded up and shuffled along to the next place."


Agree 100%. Cooped up like Pigeons.


My idea of a holiday is to go where others don't !

IEWinkle
17th Apr 2014, 11:44
I note from Airship's photo of SEWOL just prior to her final capsize that few if any of the liferafts on the vessel have been deployed! It seems crazy to me that after more 2 hours in which it must have been clear to all that the vessel would eventually capsize/sink, there had been no serious effort to evacuate the passengers. From the angle of the decks it is clear that moving around in the passenger spaces would be virtually impossible. Recognising such a fact at an early stage, should have encouraged the crew to muster the passengers outside the accommodation on what limited external decks existed on this vessel and from there attempt to get them into liferafts.

The cause of this accident, while still a mystery, has much in common with the Costa Concordia disaster where long raking damage opened up multiple compartments to flooding. If the same occurred here it has opened sufficient wing tanks (which will be about 20% the breadth of the ship) to cause a rapid large list which has not allowed the cross flooding system in these wing tanks to take effect and bring the vessel back near upright. If this is the case, it will be the first example I have come across of a Ro-Ro ferry capsizing with its vehicle deck fully intact and probably dry. The final capsize appears to have been from flooding of the superstructure above the vehicle deck from access points at the aft end and eventually in the side. The lack of trim suggests that the damage is limited to the midship wing compartments which are unfortunately also the largest in volume.

Let's hope the divers can find some survivors and can report on the damage fairly soon.

sitigeltfel
17th Apr 2014, 12:21
Let's hope the divers can find some survivors and can report on the damage fairly soon.

From the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/southkorea/10771706/South-Korean-ferry-disaster-families-arrive-at-scene-as-search-for-survivors-goes-on.html)...

There are 500 divers hoping to enter the hull at 12.45pm. It might get a bit crowded down there :confused:

SOPS
17th Apr 2014, 12:48
Oh no. We have had to put up with weeks of aircraft 'experts" on CNN and Sky. Now the Ferry experts have started.

airship
17th Apr 2014, 13:13
...Now the Ferry experts have started.

Yes, but at least we know where the (ferry) is...?! :p

Fox3WheresMyBanana
17th Apr 2014, 14:16
Latest reports indicate the Captain is to be the subject of a criminal investigation, as apparently he was one of the first off, and so one of the first to be rescued.
No apparent (good) reason for the accident, passengers not kept up to date, Captain saves himself first. Starting to sound very familiar.

Would those with commercial maritime experience care to comment? Seems like there are at least a few Captains out there these days without the 'Right Stuff'. It would not be the first profession to start promoting careerist 'yes' men who are lacking in traditional skills and judgement.

lomapaseo
17th Apr 2014, 15:50
On prang threads in the upper part of this forum we regularly get Metars and approach plate maps.

Why don't we at least have the same available down here?

I'm betting its a CFIT cause.

tony draper
17th Apr 2014, 16:02
Not sure if the Captain remaining aboard a sinking ship is enshrined in law,just a tradition I think, he probably does have some obligation to remain and supervise the evacuation, he being in ultimate command.

Lonewolf_50
17th Apr 2014, 16:12
he probably does have some obligation to remain and supervise the evacuation, he being in ultimate command.
Indeed. Water reported as being 53 degrees F in the news. That's pretty cold. At what point the "abandon ship" order was given will be interesting to learn.

tony draper
17th Apr 2014, 16:39
Used to be six short and one long blast on the hooter,abandon ship,every man for himself.
They probably send the crew a email now or twittter it.:uhoh:

Fox3WheresMyBanana
17th Apr 2014, 16:50
It appears to be the splash as the Captain hits the water.

Capetonian
17th Apr 2014, 16:53
Not sure if the Captain remaining aboard a sinking ship is enshrined in law,just a tradition I think, he probably does have some obligation to remain and supervise the evacuation, he being in ultimate command. I recall this brave Captain Avranas interviewed on a local radio station saying : "I am married man with wife and childrens in Athens". That was his defence for his cowardice in abandoning ship before many of the passengers.

"............. it is widely believed that a ship's captain, in the event of disaster, must go down with his ship - or at least he is expected to be the last one to step off its awash decks.

The master of the cruise ship M/V Oceanos, who in the fall of 1991 off the coast of South Africa, breached this custom by fleeing his sinking ship while hundreds of passengers remained aboard, soon learned the dishonour that attends such a too-hasty abandonment.

The master's actions during the sinking of the Oceanos raised a number of questions among captains of both merchant marine and naval vessels.


What is the captain's duty to his ship and to his passengers and crew following a casualty which threatens to sink the vessel.
What is the source of that duty and how is it enforced.
Finally, does the order to abandon ship extinguish any further duty by the captain to the ship and it's passengers and crew?

In August of 1991, the Lutine bell was no doubt tolled to announce the demise of the Greek cruise ship Oceanos which had sailed from East London to Durban, South Africa, with 571 passengers and crew members. The 7,554 ton vessel was commanded by Captain Yiannis Avranas, a Greek licensed master with 30 years seagoing experience.


Much public attention was focused not on the heroic rescuers, however, but on the ship's master and his actions. Almost immediately, survivors began to tell a tale of cowardice and betrayal. The captain, they reported, abandoned his ship in the first helicopter, leaving 160 passengers on board. A navy diver who had been lowered to assist the passengers in getting into hoisting slings reported that Captain Avranas stepped ahead of elderley passengers and demanded to be hoisted next. The diver, believing he had misunderstood him, turned to assist the passenger, only to find that the Captain had already donned the sling and was being hoisted off.


In the end, it was Robin Boltman (an entertianer on board), not the ship's captain, who was the last to leave the Oceanos.

When questioned about his conduct, Captain Avranas was predictably defensive. "When I order abandon ship, it doesn't matter matter what time I leave," he said. "Abandon ship is for everybody. If some people like to stay, they can stay." Many observers in the maritime industry disagreed. Bill Fowler, a maritime historian at Mystic Seaport, Conn., observed that, "It is very, very unusual for the captain to leave his vessel in a moment of crisis. He has to set the example of courage and moral standing."

Frank Branyard, curator of the American Merchant Marine Museum at Kings Point N.Y., and author of several books on shipping was less restrained. Captain Avranas, he observed, exhibited cowardice and panic. "Anyone who loves the sea and knows the sea understands that the captain is responsible for the safety of his passengers." Captain Avranas should be deprived of his license and face criminal prosecution, Branyard said, for "betraying the responsibilities of a ship's master that date from the earliest days of navigation."

500N
17th Apr 2014, 16:57
It looks like Ferry / Cruise ship captains seem to have a bit of a problem.

Re Evacuation / Abandon ship, if the Captain leaves - and possibly the other senior officers don't know or have also left, it makes it damn hard for the lower levels to know when to get off.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
17th Apr 2014, 17:02
It perhaps bears mentioning that, as a general point, if the owners refuse to pay for decent repairs and crews, then they are likely to attract senior shipboard officers who disappear at the first opportunity. Furthermore, responsible officers who are not listened to and have their judgements over-ruled are not likely to stay with such employers.

This is widely applicable to responsible posts, not just the marine ones. We should be asking why such companies both employ, and/or end up with, such officers.

airship
17th Apr 2014, 17:49
Most recent AIS info here:

M/V SEWOL (http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/9105205/vessel:SEWOL)

and

"last-known position" of M/V SEWOL (http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:125.8471/centery:36.33022/zoom:8/oldmmsi:440000400/olddate:lastknown)

lomapaseo wrote: On prang threads in the upper part of this forum we regularly get Metars and approach plate maps. Will the above "do for you" in the interim...?! :ok:

John Hill
18th Apr 2014, 04:07
The ferry was headed for Jeju Island which was the scene of a fairly nasty series of events in 1948.

RatherBeFlying
18th Apr 2014, 04:27
Surprised I'm saying that:suspect:

parabellum
18th Apr 2014, 05:00
Don't know how it works at sea, cabin crew have pre appointed places to be and duties in the event of abandoning an aircraft, what about sailors?


Wouldn't some of the ships officers and crew have a responsibility to launch the lifeboats and in the event of a failure in the command chain to set about the launch anyway, it happens in aviation, the chief in the cabin will not wait long for an instruction from the flight deck before ordering the evacuation themselves, especially if there is fire present.

Earl
18th Apr 2014, 05:39
Don't know how it works on ships.
But if any crew member leaves an airplane he or she is no longer the crew that the pax depends on,.
That crew member becomes a spectator.
Useless.
How can one sleep at night for the remaining life knowing that you did not do your job and bailed out do to fear and all training you have been taught.
Means you should have never held that position to begin with.
Someone dropped the ball in your training.

jolihokistix
18th Apr 2014, 05:58
So why did she spin the wheel hard over?
The Chosun Ilbo (English Edition): Daily News from Korea - Inexperienced 3rd Mate Steered Ill-Fated Ferry (http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2014/04/18/2014041801469.html)

Yamagata ken
18th Apr 2014, 11:52
Japanese press is reporting that after sale from Japan to Korea, the MV Sewol was modified. The superstructure was changed to expand the passenger capacity from 804 to 921 people. The weight changed from 5997 to 6586 tonnes. Thats 589 tonnes added to the superstructure.

TWT
18th Apr 2014, 12:50
Vice principal of South Korea school in ferry disaster commits suicide | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/18/uk-korea-ship-idUKBREA3F02420140418)

Lonewolf_50
18th Apr 2014, 13:24
From the link TWT providedBut he added: "Koreans don't have the view that they have to stay with their ship until the end. It is a different culture from the West." Remind me not to board: An Italian vessel, a Greek vessel, a South Korean vessel. Captains bailing out on their duty to their passengers doesn't go over well with me. :mad:
Some media reports have said the vessel turned sharply, causing cargo to shift and the ship to list before capsizing.
Japanese press is reporting that after sale from Japan to Korea, the MV Sewol was modified. The superstructure was changed to expand the passenger capacity from 804 to 921 people. The weight changed from 5997 to 6586 tonnes. Thats 589 tonnes added to the superstructure.

Hmm. Load shift, higher CG. (Why didn't it go all pear shaped on a journey before this, one wonders?)
I'd need to go back to my old books on ship stability and the height of the center of load, meta center, etc., to ponder on how one raises the CG to where the ship does not right itself during a sharp turn. I wonder if they chinced on ballast to save fuel/weight?
Marine investigators and the coastguard have said it was too early to pinpoint a cause for the accident and declined to comment on the possibility of the cargo shifting. OK, how else does one account for instability?
According to data from South Korea's Financial Supervisory Service, a government body, Chonghaejin is "indirectly" owned by two sons of the owner of a former shipping company called Semo Marine which went bankrupt in 1997.
Rush has a song about things like this ... Rush - Fly By Night - YouTube

sitigeltfel
18th Apr 2014, 14:15
Transcript of initial distress calls...

Radio conversation on VHF (very high frequency) Channel 12

8:55 am

Sewol: Harbour affairs Jeju, do you have reception of the Sewol?

Jeju VTS: Yes, Sewol, this is Harbour affairs Jeju

Sewol: Please notify the coast guard. Our ship is in danger. It's listing right now.

8:56 am
Jeju VTS: Where's your ship? Yes, got it. We will notify the coast guard.

Sewol: The ship has listed a lot. Can't move. Please come quickly.

Sewol: We're next to Byeongpung Island.

Jeju VTS: Yes, we got it.

8:58 am
Jeju VTS: Sewol, this is Harbour affairs Jeju. Do you have reception?

Sewol, Harbour affairs Jeju.

8:59 am
Sewol: Harbour affairs Jeju, this is Sewol

Jeju VTS: Sewol, this is Harbour affairs Jeju. Channel 21, please.

Radio conversation on VHF Channel 21.
9:00 am
Jeju VTS: Sewol, this is Harbour affairs Jeju.

Sewol: Jeju, Sewol here.

Jeju VTS: what's the current situation?

Sewol: Currently the body of the ship has listed to the left. The containers have listed as well.

Jeju VTS: OK. Any loss of human life or injuries?

Sewol: It's impossible to check right now. The body of the ship has tilted, and it's impossible to move.

Jeju VTS: Yes, OK. Please wear life jackets and prepare as the people might have to abandon ship.

Sewol: It's hard for people to move.

Jeju VTS: Yes, got it.

Radio conversation on VHF Channel 12
9:05 a.m.
Sewol: Harbour affairs Jeju, do you have reception of Sewol?

Jeju VTS: Yes, this is Harbour affairs Jeju, Sewol

Sewol: What's going on with the coast guard?

Jeju VTS: Yes, we have notified the coast guard. Currently we are calling Jindo VTS and Wando VTS. Please hold for a moment.

After this, Jeju VTS notified other ships and Wando VTS.

South Korea ferry disaster: Transcript of the Sewol's distress calls - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/southkorea/10774890/South-Korea-ferry-disaster-Transcript-of-the-Sewols-distress-calls.html)

Fox3WheresMyBanana
18th Apr 2014, 14:21
Sampoong Department Store collapse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampoong_Department_Store_collapse)

South Koreans carrying out illegal engineering modifications to increase profits and bribing inspectors to ignore it? Customers not told to evacuate until it was too late? Hundreds dead?

..and, repeat

Lonewolf_50
18th Apr 2014, 15:17
sitigeltfel
Jeju VTS: what's the current situation?

Sewol: Currently the body of the ship has listed to the left. The containers have listed as well.
(snip a bit)
Sewol: It's impossible to check right now. The body of the ship has tilted, and it's impossible to move.

Jeju VTS: Yes, OK. Please wear life jackets and prepare as the people might have to abandon ship.

Sewol: It's hard for people to move.

Jeju VTS: Yes, got it.
While I am not sure who had the radio on the bridge of that ship, this is looking very grim for captain and crew.

Secure for sea: this was a term that meant a great deal to me while I was in the navy. As we all discussed in that terrible Bagram crash of the 747 cargo plane, knowing how to secure stowed cargo and equipment on board is part and parcel to a cargo operation's daily job. That candid point (presuming this transcript is authentic) is noteworthy. Something wasn't secure for sea ... maybe a lot of somethings!

We would now and again read about accidents while underway on the monthly safety surveys. The were occasionally fatal, when beam seas or a significant turn, or a combination of both, induced significant roll on a warship. Things not "secure for sea" would begin moving about. The larger and heavier the item, the greater the damage and injury.

On the last cruiser where I served, all of us would get the occasional spot check from a representative of the chief engineer on whether our spaces were secure for sea. If not, then the officer in charge of that space got to visit the Number One/Executive Officer for coffee and doughnuts ... absent coffee, absent doughnuts, hat on, at attention, and a one way conversation.
Didn't happen to me: I and our senior NCO (a senior chief petty officer) were sticklers in that regard. The men took care of business. (You have to have good men! :ok:)

My room mate had occasion for a one way conversation. :eek: Not his best day ever.

Lon More
18th Apr 2014, 17:45
Charges being pressed against Captain, who wasn't on the bridge, and the watchkeepers.

What's Korean for "Schettino" ?

Fox3WheresMyBanana
18th Apr 2014, 17:55
My money is on the containers not being strapped down properly and shifting with the sharp turn. The combination of shifted containers and increased CG with the modifications then being sufficient to capsize the ship. It would not surprise me if everybody from owner to deckhand ends up with some part of the blame in this.

sitigeltfel
18th Apr 2014, 18:24
What's Korean for "Schettino" ?

똥, 오 없음

(Try Google translate) ;)

airship
18th Apr 2014, 19:46
The M/V SEWOL (with bow still apparently remaining above the seawater level) appears to have sunk in relatively shallow water.

There is still hope for all those remaining aboard IMHO. They may still be alive, trapped in "air pockets". Considering the relatively shallow depths involved, these air pockets may last for several days...

So there's no excuse for the South Koreans not to have divers etc. "standing by" and ready for their rescue mission once the weather / sea conditions permit... :ok:

Lonewolf_50
18th Apr 2014, 20:13
airship, while there may be air pockets, you might want to read what the Korean Navy official had to say about water temp, 53 degrees F, and hypothermia.

I don't want to give up hope, and agree that all efforts should be made, but as each hour passes, the prospects get very grim. :uhoh:

The media have cited the divers as reporting that visibility under water is horrible. They can't see very far. Water is cloudy/murky. That makes the diver's job much, much harder than in the case of Costa Concordia.

Incredibly sad, and it appears to have been a very preventable accident. :=

Akrotiri71
18th Apr 2014, 20:21
If modifications were made to the vessel without notifying the appropriate authorities, (DNV, ABS etc.), then someone is in deep sh!t!

The MODU's that I work on are strictly governed by, in our case, DNV. Any modifications carried out have to be approved by all appropriate bodies by submitting an RFM, (Request For Modification). Not a wrench can be turned, that would alter the 'as built' drawings. Red-line drawings are required to be submitted and approved by the concerned authorities. Flout these rules at your peril!!

tony draper
18th Apr 2014, 20:28
There are many places in the world where a envelope stuffed with money speaks louder than a rule,some of them a lot closer to home than S/Korea.
:uhoh:

Fox3WheresMyBanana
18th Apr 2014, 20:41
Akro71 - I'm aware. It's more likely, judging from other Korean accidents, that either the mods weren't done to the approved plans (more added), or the mods were legal, but the number of containers and/or their securing was illegal.
With appropriately-sized brown envelopes to the inspectors.

Lonewolf_50
18th Apr 2014, 21:31
Another option, Fox3, is that someone did a crap job of securing the cargo.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
18th Apr 2014, 21:35
Well, indeed, as I alluded to earlier.
As others with sea experience have mentioned though, one has to look up the chain to see why (if that's the case) seaman are doing a bad job, supervisory checks are lacking, etc.

theclockworkorange
18th Apr 2014, 22:17
Lifeboats can only be launched when the ship is upright. Even a small amount of list makes it impossible. Oil rig style drop boats would be the only solution.

There were loads of unused liferafts visible as well.

As I get older I take official safety advice with a pinch of salt these days. But I count the rows in aircraft and read the safety card though which probably makes me a little unusual.

Lonewolf_50
18th Apr 2014, 22:17
Yessir Fox3, agreed, either the captain and company run a tight ship, or they don't. There seems to be little middle ground.

500N
18th Apr 2014, 22:27
"Lifeboats can only be launched when the ship is upright. Even a small amount of list makes it impossible. Oil rig style drop boats would be the only solution."

Which is crazy that they can only be launched when upright.

I noticed a few orange soft life rafts which looked like they were from the ship. Surely they can be launched automatically, inflated automatically and tied to the ship until untied by a person ?

IEWinkle
18th Apr 2014, 22:39
Lifeboats can only be launched when the ship is upright. Even a small amount of list makes it impossible.This vessel did not use lifeboats - only liferafts. As can be seen from the photos, these liferafts were not deployed with the exception of two shortly before final capsize. Liferafts can be deployed from the vessel in any state as the canisters just have to be rolled into the water, preferably after making sure they are secured to the vessel.

This is significant evidence for a complete lack of any formal evacuation by the crew.

Lonewolf_50
18th Apr 2014, 22:47
I am trying to piece together a timeline.

Ship makes a turn, maybe a sharp turn. Instead of righting itself, it lists to one side. It lists enough to where water begins to come in (assuming the deck where the vehicles are, as it's a RO/RO) and since water follows gravity, the water taken on board tends to exacerbate the list already in place.

As more water comes in, the ability to right itself is lost because they either can't pump ballast across into other tanks fast enough, or can't pump water out fast enough, or both, and it becomes a vicious circle.

But how long does it take? It seems from the reports to take an hour or two before the thing goes completely tits up. (I may be misunderstanding the reports here. It may have taken much less time).

So, how long does it take to realize "Fcku me, this think is hosed, get the people the hell off this ship, get the life rafts launched?"

con-pilot
18th Apr 2014, 22:49
This is significant evidence for a complete lack of any formal evacuation by the crew.

Well it sure looked like the Captain (so-called in my opinon) formally evacuated the ship. He was about the only one by the way it looks.

500N
18th Apr 2014, 22:51
Lone

I think what you say is correct but happened faster. Once the water was in, that was it.

I found this timeline last night as well as a good drawing with the timeline of
how fast it turned over.

South Korea ferry disaster: Timeline of events (http://www.straitstimes.com/news/asia/east-asia/story/south-korea-ferry-disaster-timeline-events-20140417)


Someone needs to go through these cruise ships / ferries with a good dose of salts and
make sure they know WTF they are supposed to do in an emergency. TWO lots of crew
in a few years "jump ship" before the passengers.

G-CPTN
18th Apr 2014, 23:12
Many of those 'here' are not from Britain, so might not be aware of the Herald of Free Enterprise capsized within minutes of leaving Zeebrugge due to leaving the dock with the bow loading doors open.
Water entered and quickly caused the vessel to list.

More here:- MS Herald of Free Enterprise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Herald_of_Free_Enterprise)

IEWinkle
18th Apr 2014, 23:13
Japanese press is reporting that after sale from Japan to Korea, the MV Sewol was modified. The superstructure was changed to expand the passenger capacity from 804 to 921 people. The weight changed from 5997 to 6586 tonnes. Thats 589 tonnes added to the superstructure. This is an interesting point in that the top deck aft of the funnel was added about two years ago when she transferred from Japanese to Korean ownership - if there were further modifications they are not visible in photos and the vessel does not seem to have required added stability sponsons as often seen after such modifications. This suggests that she was still within IMO stability criteria but probably has somewhat reduced stability. My own first round rough calculations suggest that to achieve a list of 21 to 25.5 degrees (for metacentric heights of 1.0 m down to 0.25 m respectively) would require 10% of her total displacement flooding the port wing tanks - this represents about 4 fully flooded compartments around amidships, more than can be expected from any cargo shift.

The weight figures quoted above seem rather light for a vessel with Lpp = 132m, B = 22m and T = 6.26m on a deadweight of 3794 tonnes and would represent a Block Coefficient of 0.556. This is very fine for a Ro-Pax vessel but might explain why she has a quoted speed of 23.88 knots - very fast for only 132m with 2 x 9000bhp machinery. This data was taken from a 'forsaleships.net' website but has since been removed, suggesting that the owners were preparing to sell her on again.

IEWinkle
18th Apr 2014, 23:25
Ship makes a turn, maybe a sharp turn. Instead of righting itself, it lists to one side. It lists enough to where water begins to come in (assuming the deck where the vehicles are, as it's a RO/RO) and since water follows gravity, the water taken on board tends to exacerbate the list already in place. You do not explain how any water might enter the vessel's vehicle deck if there was a cargo shift. Without external hull penetration the vessel was watertight up to the 14 m deck running under the superstructure as this is what forms the stability envelope for the ship. There is only one publicised example of shifting cargo penetrating the side shell due to an uncontrolled full speed turn and that sent a cargo of steel plate knifing through the shell, but without any flooding or further ill effects.

It is much more likely that the vessel suffered raking damage to its empty wing tanks below the waterline as the result of striking and underwater obstruction.

broadreach
19th Apr 2014, 01:41
I tend to agree with IEWinkle, i.e. the ship sideswiped rocks, charted or not. Similar, perhaps, to the Costa Concordia disaster but with a far faster evolution on a RoRo vessel than on a more compartmented passenger vessel.

This was a ferry, whose crews had presumably done the trip dozens of times before. The very idea of "uncharted rocks" in South Korean waters is unimaginable. I suspect it will all devolve into a navigational error by the officer on watch.

Keeping passengers in their cabins rather than sounding the general alarm, though, does seem criminal.

lomapaseo
19th Apr 2014, 03:53
Never quite sure of anything published but the

South Korea ferry disaster:

Timeline of events in 500N post implies the distress call was sent with no list present on the ship. This seem to argue against a turn causing the excessive list

jolihokistix
19th Apr 2014, 04:40
lomapaseo, that timeline is seriously generalized. The distress call was sent after the list.

RatherBeFlying
19th Apr 2014, 07:17
They were mostly fit young men who did not wait for official word - - instead made tracks for the upper deck right after the ship showed signs of trouble.

As the vessel rotated they climbed over the deck railing to the side of the hull. As they made their way to the bottom, they could see into cabins where people were trapped.

Very quickly on, the stairwells became death traps.

500N
19th Apr 2014, 07:22
jolihokistix

"lomapaseo, that timeline is seriously generalized. The distress call was sent after the list."


What time was the distress call issued ?

Union Jack
19th Apr 2014, 18:36
Taking due note of the modifications to the SEWOL, it is both interesting and chastening to note the very striking similarities with the loss of the Japanese ferry ARIAKE in 2009 due a major cargo shift, described in fuller detail at Arirang News :: Could similar incident in Japan provide clues into Korean ferry disaster? (http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=161106) , noting not least that both ships were constructed by the same builder, and originally operated by the same Japanese company prior to the SEWOL's sale to Korea.

The weather conditions and the depth of water in which the ARIAKE came to grief were evidently quite different, as were the numbers on board, all of whom were fortunately rescued due to the proximity to shore. More information at http://mtcave.********.com.es/2009/11/ferry-going-down-off-coast-of-japan.html

Jack

IEWinkle
19th Apr 2014, 20:19
I have managed to estimate the effect of flooding from 5 to 15 % of the vessel's displacement (about 520 to 1550 tonnes) in its port wing tanks. Despite considering initial GM values from 0.15m (IMO minimum) to 2.0m I can only obtain angles of list up to 28 degrees (with the largest flooding value and lowest GM) and about 10 degrees for the lowest flooding and largest GM. This is not sufficient to flood the superstructure above the vehicle spaces which should have been watertight at least to 14m depth (about 35 degrees).

At angles of 25 degrees plus there will be added contributions from some movement of cargo but in calm conditions this will not become significant until about 35 degrees or more depending on cargo type. In order to get the larger list clearly indicated in the the many photographs it is necessary to consider flooding of the vehicle deck, but there seems to be no obvious entry point other than the possibility of faulty scuppers which should have non-return valves fitted. If these were jammed open, then progressive flooding of the vehicle space could take place which would provide a slow mechanism to achieve angles of 45 degrees or so within about half an hour to an hour. This would require about 1000-1500 tonne of water on the vehicle deck as well as the flooded wing tanks below. Shortly after this the superstructure decks reach the water level and will start to accelerate the capsize as water enters through open doors etc. It is clear from the immediate pre-capsize photos and video when the vessel is at about 85 degrees that more than half the vessel is out of the water indicating that she still had a great deal of further flooding to take place before she could roll right over and sink. In the final capsize video sequences there are clearly visible openings venting air which would appear to be from some of the vehicle deck scuppers as water flooded in.
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/images/buttons/edit.gif (http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=685054)

V2-OMG!
19th Apr 2014, 20:41
Oops! Ran out of runway -- I mean waterway here.

Queen of Oak Bay Crash - YouTube

IEWinkle
19th Apr 2014, 20:46
loss of the Japanese ferry ARIAKE in 2009 due a major cargo shiftThis is a fascinating coincidence, but ARIAKE seems to have been struck by a massive wave which caused her cargo shift. In the case of SEWOL the sea appears to have been calm. However, the impact of a 2000 tonne cargo shift seems very dramatic and suggests some interesting stability issues for this design. Perhaps there is a second higher vehicle deck above the main one which would have a much more dramatic effect on stability if cargo shifted and this has further contributed to SEWOL's case.

OFSO
19th Apr 2014, 20:48
so might not be aware of the Herald of Free Enterprise capsized within minutes of leaving Zeebrugge due to leaving the dock with the bow loading doors open.

Yes, I lost a colleague in that one. The tragic circumstances of why she was on that boat are only exceeded by the pathos of the way her body was found, a month after the sinking. Not something one forgets.

In calm weather the HoFE and her sister ships usually swung around and steered for the harbour entrance with the doors slowly closing. I've seen it myself more than once, from the car deck. One crewmember said something to me about it helping to clear exhaust fumes from the car and truck decks.

jolihokistix
19th Apr 2014, 20:56
500N What time was the distress call issued ?

See post #66, 8:55 am. She was already listing.

Yamagata ken
20th Apr 2014, 00:27
@IE Winkle FWIW, the Japanese RoRo ferries I've travelled on have two vehicle decks. Cars go up a ramp, and when the upper deck is loaded, the ramp is raised and the trucks fill the lower deck. I have no idea if that is relevant in this case.

500N
20th Apr 2014, 05:56
I can't seem to reconcile what the Captain is saying with the fact that the ship had life rafts which if deployed early enough would have negated the need to spend a long time in the water, if any.

And why the need to wait for a rescue ship or other boats when you have life rafts.

Sounds like a bit of arse covering to me.

"Questioned as to why passengers had been ordered not to move for more than 40 minutes after the ship first foundered, Mr Lee insisted he had acted in their best interest.
"At the time a rescue ship had not arrived. There were also no fishing boats or other ships around to help," he said. "The currents were very strong and the water was cold at that time in the area.
"I thought that passengers would be swept far away and fall into trouble if they evacuated thoughtlessly," he added."

Read more: Angry relatives clash with police as Korea recovers dead (http://www.smh.com.au/world/angry-relatives-clash-with-police-as-korea-recovers-dead-20140420-zqwxr.html#ixzz2zOoVATZ7)

ex_matelot
20th Apr 2014, 07:31
"Questioned as to why passengers had been ordered not to move for more than 40 minutes after the ship first foundered, Mr Lee insisted he had acted in their best interest.
"At the time a rescue ship had not arrived. There were also no fishing boats or other ships around to help," he said. "The currents were very strong and the water was cold at that time in the area.
"I thought that passengers would be swept far away and fall into trouble if they evacuated thoughtlessly," he added."

I'm betting refusal to acknowledge perceived failure due to "loss of face" played a part...by the Capt and then various key figures coordinating the damage assessment.

It has been suggested a high-speed turn could have caused cargo slip. Note - depending on the speed, the ship will (at high speed) list outward of the turn first before listing inwards again.

This should not happen in this day and age.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
20th Apr 2014, 12:04
It's a cultural thing, which is less common in the West "in this day and age" but by no means absent. If there is good to come out of this and similar (e.g. Fukushima) tragedies, it will be progress towards a humanitarian approach by those in power rather than a 'face-saving' approach. It sounds like the Korean public wish to move in that direction.

IEWinkle
20th Apr 2014, 22:57
the Japanese RoRo ferries I've travelled on have two vehicle decksI have come to the same conclusion from closer study of the photos of the ship before capsize and the after end of the capsizing vessel. It then seems that there were 3 passenger decks above the two vehicle decks accessed by the peculiar accommodation ladders suspended from both sides. It would be good if anyone has any deck plans of this or its sisters.

Lonewolf_50
21st Apr 2014, 02:38
ie, were you suggesting in your response to me that cargo shifting alone was sufficient to capsize the ship?

IEWinkle
21st Apr 2014, 17:13
ie, were you suggesting in your response to me that cargo shifting alone was sufficient to capsize the ship? Cargo shift seems to be the less likely initiator than damage to the underwater hull due to collision with an object, which may incidentally lead to cargo shift as a secondary effect due to large heel angles. The previous example of this ship type - ARIAKE - suffered severe cargo shift due to a strike by a freak wave (with resulting extreme roll) in severe storm conditions. In the case of SEWOL all reports suggest the sea was relatively calm and she appears to have had her stabilisers deployed to ensure smooth running so there needs to be a cargo shift initiator. The idea of a steering accident does not seem to be supported by any concrete evidence while the impact scenario seems fairly well documented

Lonewolf_50
21st Apr 2014, 17:45
iewinkle ... ok, from your response, I arrive at a provisional hypothesis.

Sharp turn by junior officer at the helm who realizes too late that on the track (perhaps did not account for current correctly) she was heading for a Known underwater hazard (rock). Grounding event was looming. Gives the helm a large rudder order ... sadly a bit too late (advance and transfer, etc), but turn starts and during turn ship takes slashing damage below the waterline ... so damage initiation occurs in the middle and late segments of the turn. Inrushing water amd cargo shift both begin to act as counterweights to righting moment, and so forth, all ends in tears.

Here's my problem with that scenario:

Would not someone on the ship have felt/heard the wound to the ship's hull (below waterline) during that event? :confused:

IEWinkle
21st Apr 2014, 19:19
Would not someone on the ship have felt/heard the wound to the ship's hull (below waterline) during that event? There are many reports of a loud thump/bang and the damage would have been three large decks below the passenger spaces which are in a relatively insulated environment. In the Costa Concordia Incident, there was very little discussion of the noise of the collision, only the sudden lurch!

PAXboy
22nd Apr 2014, 01:18
BBC News - South Korea ferry: President condemns crew actions (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-27100056)
South Korean President Park Geun-hye has condemned the conduct of some of the crew of the ferry that sank last week, calling it "akin to murder". Politicians, as usual, adding prejudicial statements to the mix, before all the facts are known. But, with it known that an inexperienced person was at the helm, not correctly supervised - irrespective of anything else - then it is all about Face.

500N
22nd Apr 2014, 01:21
"that an inexperienced person was at the helm, not correctly supervised"

What I haven't worked out is, was he the
- one steering but with no one supervising him ?
- only one on the bridge ?
- the senior one on the bridge ?

I have yet to clearly work out what was going on on the bridge.

rh200
22nd Apr 2014, 03:02
I have yet to clearly work out what was going on on the bridge.

Sounds like the crew didn't either.

500N
22nd Apr 2014, 03:12
"The captain was not on the bridge at the time of the initial listing, not unusual on a 13 1/2-hour voyage. Navigation was the responsibility of a 26-year-old third mate."


Still doesn't say who was steering or setting the speed.

Mariner9
22nd Apr 2014, 14:54
A 3rd Officer (assuming he was properly certified) is qualified to act as Officer of the Watch and can legally be the only person on the bridge. As OOW he would set the course (usually via autopilot) and speed (typically left at "full ahead")

I became a 3rd Officer on Very Large Crude Carriers at the tender age of 22, and other than in reduced visibility or restricted waterways, would typically be the only one on the bridge during the daytime, and accompanied only by an AB to act as lookout at night.

Lonewolf_50
22nd Apr 2014, 14:56
Thanks for that insight.

It appears that the 3d mate/3d officer was a she, not a he, in this case. I may have read the news incorrectly however.

500N
22nd Apr 2014, 14:58
Mariner

Wouldn't you call this channel / water "restricted" or at least not open water
with all the currents ?

Mariner9
22nd Apr 2014, 15:30
Bridge manning requirements and the definition of restricted waterways would (or should) be set out in the vessel's ISM procedures (similar to aircraft SOPs) although that would be a rather generalised overview.

More importantly, the Master has an obligation to satisfy himself as to the competency of the Bridge team with due regard to the prevailing weather, traffic, and the proximity of navigational hazards.

Unless new to the job, ferry watch-keeping officers would likely have sailed on that route numerous times, so should be well experienced in the waters concerned. This may have led to a more relaxed oversight from the Master (a possible link in the "swiss cheese", but by no means an excuse).

Despite all that, accidents happen on even the most well-run vessels, so I'm prepared to keep an open mind for now on whether the Master, Officers and Crew were negligent in their navigation of the vessel. Personally, I'm more concerned about their post-accident handling of the situation which from what is reported, appears to have been woeful. :mad:

500N
22nd Apr 2014, 15:55
Mariner

I did see something written that said they left port late and
were trying to catch up and the high speed turn was to cut
a corner off.

Not sure whether that is a bit of journalistic license or true.

It said they certainly knew about the currents etc.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
22nd Apr 2014, 16:06
I recall, on a Service yacht, leaving an RN officer who had recently gained his OOW ticket on a frigate in charge one night crossing the Channel. The reason he had come sailing was to improve his boat handling skills, which were not a big part of the training. Thus I was confident he could recognise any situation which might require a significant change in course (he could recite the Rules of the Road chapter and verse), but left instructions for me (as skipper) to be called on deck before he made such a change.
Perhaps the skipper of the Ferry should have done the same?

500N
22nd Apr 2014, 16:15
Not sure that it was the change in course but the speed of the change in course that caused the problem. This then caused the freight / containers to break away which then exasperated the list and the rest is history.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
22nd Apr 2014, 16:18
Well, exactly, and that is my point. There's more to a change in course than just turning the wheel.

500N
22nd Apr 2014, 16:21
Yes, sorry, doh !

Mariner9
22nd Apr 2014, 16:48
There's no Va (manoeuvring speed) limits for ships - a seaworthy vessel should be able to put the helm hard over at full sea speed without losing positive stability, having cargo shift, or sinking.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
22nd Apr 2014, 17:01
Ah!, that ain't necessarily so for sailing vessels.

er340790
22nd Apr 2014, 17:45
I believe the amount of rudder deflection is software-controlled, at least on modern ships: more at lower speeds, less at higher etc.

Princess Cruises almost capsized the then brand-new Crown Princess coming out of Port Everglades a few years back. Somehow they managed to invoke full rudder deflection at higher speed... :eek:

The National Transportation Safety Board issued a number of recommendations for training and international regulatory action aimed at preventing heeling incidents.

The recommendations spring from the 2006 Crown Princess accident outside Port Everglades when a sharp turn caused 14 serious and 284 minor injuries to passengers and crew.

The NTSB said the U.S. Coast Guard should propose to the IMO that, in conjunction with the upcoming revisions to the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, it make training in integrated navigation systems and integrated bridge systems mandatory for watchkeepers on vessels equipped with such systems.

The USCG should also propose to the IMO that it mandate the recording on voyage data recorders of heel angles through the complete range of possible values, the safety board said.

In further recommendations, until the IMO makes training in integrated navigations systems mandatory, the Cruise Lines International Association is asked to advise members to provide initial and recurrent systems training to crew who also should be required to demonstrate a level of proficiency using the systems.

CLIA should share information about the Crown Princess incident and encourage members to incorporate such training into their safety management systems and officer training programs.

The NTSB also recommended that Sperry Marine and SAM Electronics work with vessel operators to develop a system that provides critical information regarding errors or potential problems in the use of integrated navigation systems or integrated bridge systems and apply the lessons learned to system design and crew training.

As earlier reported, the NTSB’s investigation of the Crown Princess incident determined that the probable cause was a second officer’s incorrect wheel commands, executed first to counter an unanticipated high rate of turn and then to counter the vessel’s heeling.

Contributing to the cause of the accident were the captain’s and staff captain’s inappropriate inputs to Crown Princess’s integrated navigation system while the ship was traveling at high speed in relatively shallow water, their failure to stabilize the heading fluctuations before leaving the bridge, and the inadequate training of crew in the use of integrated navigation systems.

Princess Cruises said it enacted a number of measures, including additional systems training, shortly after the accident.

ex_matelot
22nd Apr 2014, 20:29
RN Type 22s, with steering motors switched on (enhanced rudder speed) could easily handle being thrown 'hardover' at 28kts. Sometimes the bank was so great the water was only a couple of feet below the upperdeck on the inside of a turn. Lockers, bootdrawers under bunks and anything else unsecured flew everywhere though. Witnessed the ship "surfing" several times also.
HMS Brave actually had a slightly twisted foc'sle because of this.

500N
22nd Apr 2014, 21:58
I see they are saying that the ferry hull will be raised in 2 days
so I guess we will find out then if it hit something.

PAXboy
23rd Apr 2014, 02:47
Heard a radio interview on BBC (translated) with a regular traveller on the ferry, a truck driver. He said that the ferry stared to list - no mention of a 'bang' or anything else. Just that the vessel started to list.

Brian Abraham
23rd Apr 2014, 04:55
no mention of a 'bang' or anything elseIt's reported elsewhere that the "bang" was after the ship listed

Sinking of the MV Sewol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_MV_Sewol)

Flash2001
23rd Apr 2014, 16:15
EM

Do RN Type 22s heel to the inside of turns? I thought the C of G of most surface ships was above the waterline and they thus heeled out.

IEWinkle
23rd Apr 2014, 19:18
Do RN Type 22s lean to the inside of turns?Invariably out! As you suggest VCG is always well above the Centre of Lateral Resistance (about half draught).

IEWinkle
23rd Apr 2014, 21:22
The weight changed from 5997 to 6586 tonnes. Thats 589 tonnes added to the superstructure.Yamagata Ken, can you confirm the additional weight here as it seems out of all proportion to the increase in passenger numbers - nearly a 10% increase! If so this would have a major impact on initial stability, reducing metacentric height (GM) considerably, as it does not appear to have been compensated in any way through hull modification.

ex_matelot
23rd Apr 2014, 21:29
Do RN Type 22s lean to the inside of turns? I thought the C of G of most surface ships was above the waterline and they thus listed out.

At 28kts at 30 of port or stbd rudder they tended to initially lean out before settling into the turn. The OOW could also change pitch on each of the 2 screws to aid turns etc.

John Hill
23rd Apr 2014, 22:04
The action of the rudder below the surface would tend to roll a ship into a turn.

But could a ship ever go fast enough that this effect would ever exceed the centrifugal force acting through the centre of gravity which causes the ship to roll out of a turn?

ex_matelot
23rd Apr 2014, 22:10
Like i said, yes. I have seen it often on t22,s

John Hill
23rd Apr 2014, 22:18
I notice the ferry had stabiliser wings and I wonder what part, if any, they may have played.

Lonewolf_50
23rd Apr 2014, 22:30
The action of the rudder below the surface would tend to roll a ship into a turn.

But could a ship ever go fast enough that this effect would ever exceed the centrifugal force acting through the centre of gravity which causes the ship to roll out of a turn?
That probably depends on the height of the center of gravity, and other factors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacentric_height)that contribute to, or impinge upon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_surface_effect), ship stability. It's been years since my naval architecture and ship handling courses, so a few wiki links for the basics.

Ship stability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_stability)

500N
23rd Apr 2014, 23:02
Reading about how dangerous it is for the divers in the ship - currents, dark, a few inches of vis, I wonder why they are putting the divers lives at risk when the ship is likely to be raised in a few days ?

Just thinking aloud !

Lonewolf_50
23rd Apr 2014, 23:12
They are hoping to find someone still alive.
That's my guess.

Carbon Bootprint
24th Apr 2014, 00:55
There are some rather interesting bits in the latest the Wall Street Journal. I'll post excerpts here since a password may be required to access the full article:

Prosecutors expanded their investigation into the owner of the sunken South Korean passenger ferry on Wednesday as inspectors confirmed the cargo weight declared by the ship on its final voyage was three times the recommended maximum.The ferry operator declared it was loaded with 3,608 tons of cargo when it left Incheon port on Tuesday last week, according to radio communication with the Korean Shipping Association. An official at Korean Register said on Wednesday that the maximum recommended weight of cargo for the "Sewol" was 987 tons. In addition to looking at possible overloading, prosecutors are also looking into whether the ferry was safe for operation after a redesign early last year. Modifications included adding extra passenger cabins, raising the passenger capacity by more than 150 people, and increasing the weight of the ship by almost 240 tons, the Korean Register said.

The changes were approved and met safety standards, but prosecutors are unsure whether the ship's owner made additional changes afterward. It is also not clear if Chonghaejin Marine followed a request from inspectors to take measures to ensure the ship remained balanced in case of tilting.The chaotic last moments of the Sewol also have raised questions about whether the crew were able to deal with emergencies. Prosecutors have said that interviews with crew members have revealed that they hadn't received standard safety training.

Chonghaejin's audit report for last year showed the company spent 541,000 won ($521) on crew training, including evacuation drills, as it ran an operating loss of 785 million won in 2013—its worst in 10 years. In comparison, Daea Express Shipping Co., which runs four ferries on the one hour Incheon-Deokjuk island route, spent 11.14 million won on crew training last year.Incredibly damning stuff. An accident waiting to happen, as the saying goes...



Full article here (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304518704579518993969767898?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702 304518704579518993969767898.html)

Yamagata ken
24th Apr 2014, 08:56
@iewinkle

I can confirm those are the numbers that were reported. The memsahib is away on business, and I don't read Japanese, so I can't give the actual reference.

A small point, possibly relevant. In Japanese service, ferries have a small number of private cabins, but most people sleep on the tatami mats in very large open rooms. The open rooms may have been divided up into small cabins. I don't know.

jolihokistix
24th Apr 2014, 09:15
For updates, claims and counterclaims, please read the English editions of the Korea Herald:

The Korea Herald (http://www.koreaherald.com/)

and/or

the Chosun Ilbo.

The Chosun Ilbo (English Edition): Daily News from Korea (http://english.chosun.com/)

Lots of detail, graphics, etc. there which would answer many of the questions on this thread, and put you abreast of the latest rumours, but be aware that behind every new explanation so far has been another deeper and more serious revelation waiting in the wings.
Talk about moving goalposts! :eek:

IEWinkle
24th Apr 2014, 20:53
First clear evidence of the final turn from AIS data. A most peculiar manoeuvre given the northerly drift of the vessel after just over 90 degree turn to starboard in around 1 minute.

http://twitter.com/pearswick/status/458575275735781376/photo/1

Fox3WheresMyBanana
25th Apr 2014, 04:26
Latest details here -even worse
South Korea ferry: Families' anger grows as search goes on - World - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/south-korea-ferry-families-anger-grows-as-search-goes-on-1.2620154)

Summary:
Modifications increased CoG by 51 cm, so Registration Inspector reduced cargo payload from 2,437 tons to 987 tons
Owner reported the cargo limit to the Coastguard as 3,908 tons
Cargo reported loaded on final voyage by Captain to Korean Shipping Association as 657 tons + 150 cars = approx 800 tons
Cargo actually loaded by loading company estimated at 3,608 tons.

So nearly 4 times overloaded, and a fair wack of that from photos appears to be in containers on the upper deck.
Also reports that the containers may have been roped rather than chained, and that the risk of toppling containers was why the passengers were told to remain in their cabins.

Can it get any worse??

South Korea still has the Death Penalty, but hasn't carried out an execution since 1997.

jolihokistix
25th Apr 2014, 04:30
Well, they had better not execute the captain or any of the crew, I hope.

From NHK
Sewol likely had insufficient ballast water -NHK WORLD English- (http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20140425_05.html)

Quote: "South Korean investigators suspect the ferry involved in the recent tragedy was already unstable before the accident. They think it had much heavier cargo than was safe and less ballast water than required.

The Sewol, carrying 476 people including about 300 high school students, sank on April 16th off the country's southern coast. 180 people have been confirmed dead. 122 are still unaccounted for.

Investigators are focusing on whether the ferry had the necessary ability to restore its balance if it tilted.

A government official said the non-profit ship classification society the Korean Registry of Shipping had requested the ferry carry the maximum volume of ballast water in its hold for safety reasons.

The agency officials made the request after an inspection when the operator expanded the ship's floor to carry more people. This resulted in a higher center of gravity.

The agency said the necessity to carry more ballast water decreased the cargo weight that could be carried from 2,400 tons to 987 tons.

But the Sewol was carrying 3,600 tons of cargo, or 3.6 times the weight allowed when it capsized. It likely had reduced ballast water.

Investigators suspect the ship's inability to regain equilibrium was one of causes of the accident."

Fox3WheresMyBanana
25th Apr 2014, 04:38
Oh, it can get worse.
All 15 seamen crew were rescued, including the 7 from the engine room. They left their non-seamen crew behind as well as the passengers - only 3 of 9 rescued.
Chosen Ibo has photos of the crew walking past the liferafts to escape, rather than deploying them.

500N
25th Apr 2014, 05:17
jolih

"Well, they had better not execute the captain or any of the crew, I hope."

Why.

It's the Captain's responsibility.

And the crew can cop it for getting off first without deploying the life rafts.

jolihokistix
25th Apr 2014, 07:10
500N.............ulp!!! :ouch:

...then they had better execute everyone up the line who bear at least equal responsibility for setting this stupid top-heavy balloon tragedy in motion. :confused:

West Coast
25th Apr 2014, 07:32
I don't think we want to go down the road of capital punishment for ship or airplane skippers. You think the airlines are late now, far worse when there's no one to operate them.

rh200
25th Apr 2014, 08:19
.then they had better execute everyone up the line who bear at least equal responsibility for setting this stupid top-heavy balloon tragedy in motion.

I'm with 500 on this, maybe I'm too old fashion. Frankly being Captain of a ship is a privilage, and passengers put and extreme amount of faith in them. Its not about making a mistake, or even gross incompetence, its about abandoning your post and leaving the people who depend on you to die.

Aircraft don't have that problem, the passengers and crew are on equal footing. If on the other hand the flight deck had parachutes well then:p.

Actually the flight deck not having parachutes just gives that little bit extra incentive:E

Fox3WheresMyBanana
25th Apr 2014, 10:59
Being a Captain carries responsibility.
Did the Captain know that his ship was dangerously overloaded? Yes
Did the Captain know it was unstable? Yes,or at least it was negligence if he didn't
Did the Captain order the passengers to stay in their cabins? Yes

This is manslaughter at the least, and I would argue second-degree murder.

and yes, Joli, I agree that applies to the owners as well. And since this sort of thing is rife in South Korea, it probably applies to people in the regulating body and those responsible in Government also.

And in the interests of even-handedness, I would like to see the same happen to the Canadian Government over Lac Megantic

jolihokistix
25th Apr 2014, 12:00
In the crew's defense/defence, it seems that the captain was a last-minute replacement. He handed over the wheel to the 3rd mate at exactly 8 am, the regulation time to do so. The young lady 3rd mate had navigated north on that route, but never southward before, with notoriously difficult/dangerous currents there. The ship had logged steering problems at the beginning of April but no maintenance had since been undertaken. None of the crew had been trained in emergency procedures, only 500 USD having been earmarked for such practice apparently.

The replacement captain probably never imagined that the ship would actually go down. He requested confirmation that rescue boats would be in the area very soon, as he did not want any of the passengers getting swept away in the cold sea currents, possibly causing loss of unnecessary life. Three times he asked for such confirmation, but three times he simply received instructions to make sure everyone was wearing warm clothes and life-jackets. In the meantime the decks were at such an angle that none of the crew could physically get to either the passengers or to the lifeboats.

Whether that will hold up in a court of law I do not know, but up to that point I think the captain was genuinely concerned about the welfare of the passengers. Possibly it all suddenly seemed too late, and he told to the crew to get out, but his actions from that point on are what condemn him. I am not sure they should all be under arrest, though, as they do look like scapegoats to me.

The one lady member of crew who gave her life trying to help the passengers is quite rightly being feted as a hero.

Ancient Mariner
25th Apr 2014, 12:13
I finally got around to read this thread and in doing so found a couple of issues I planned to comment on. After reading some of the last post I see there is no point in doing that. Accident investigation over, captain and crew tried and found guilty, verdict given, case closed.
Well done.
Per

Fox3WheresMyBanana
25th Apr 2014, 12:14
none of the crew could physically get to either the passengers or to the lifeboats.Following the links you posted earlier Joli, now updated, there is direct photograph evidence to the contrary.

p.s. AM - please comment. Second degree murder is what I like to see charged in a court of law, not written on a cardboard sign pinned to a hastily-erected gallows.

con-pilot
25th Apr 2014, 17:17
I finally got around to read this thread and in doing so found a couple of issues I planned to comment on. After reading some of the last post I see there is no point in doing that. Accident investigation over, captain and crew tried and found guilty, verdict given, case closed.
Well done.

I'd say you're right on, so this thread really needs to be in the R&N forum. After all, the folks there can solve an accident and know who to blame before the pieces stop falling out of the sky.

airship
25th Apr 2014, 17:54
Dear Per (Ancient Mariner) and con-pilot,

I started this thread with: They may only be "South Koreans" to some, but to me, they're the folks who manufactured my LG computer monitor, my LG microwave oven and even my 15 year old (GOLDSTAR as LG was known back then) "frost-free fridge-freezer. All of which have functioned perfectly without service / repair since new.

Just because the south Koreans do (or at least have repeatedly and continuously been shown to have done so in the past over many decades) manufacture very reliable computer monitors, TVs, refrigerators etc. for export, does not necessarily mean that their ferries / transportation systems etc. work (or are managed) equally well... :sad:

Many thanks to all who've contributed their expertise here.

PS. I'm sure that many might wish to blame this tragedy on a north Korean mine or submarine attack. Alas...

IEWinkle
25th Apr 2014, 18:45
Having analysed the track (see Post 142 above) it is possible to deduce a 2.3 kn current heading just to the East of North. Taking that into account, the speed for 36 seconds after 8:48:37KST was 19.5 kn over the ground or 21.1 kn through the water (close to her maximum service speed). During the next 24 seconds her speed over the ground reduced to just under 16 kn as she entered a starboard turn changing her heading by 30 degrees. The next 19 seconds saw her turn tighten dramatically and speed reduce to an average of 10 kn followed by the next 40 seconds over which the average speed was only 6.5 kn. Within this period of 59 seconds she changed heading 71 degrees and appears to have had a fairly constant turn radius of only 191 m. This is tight for a vessel of 132 m Lpp and suggests rudder(s) hard over.

The rapid reduction in speed and subsequent drift suggest that all power was lost around the commencement of the turn and this may correspond to the reported break in transmission. Was this a major electrical failure cutting all generated power? This would kill the main propulsion as the fuel pumps would fail (despite the fact that it is diesel). How the steering then seems to have gone hard over is a fascinating question? However, at entry to the sharp turn at about 16 kn, the heel generated by a 191 m radius turn might be extreme, depending on initial metacentric height (GM). I have speculated on a range of GMs from the IMO minimum of 0.15m through 1.00m to 2.0m (these latter two being the range you would normally expect for a vessel of this type). The estimated minimum heeling arms for these 3 GMs are 10.29m, 9.44m and 8.44m respectively (i.e. the vertical distance between the Centre of Gravity and the Centre of Lateral Resistance (approximately half draught) and the resulting (steady) angles of heel for an entry speed of 16 kn would have been 19.8 and 8.7 degrees respectively for the 1.0 and 2.0m GM's with dynamic motions taking the vessel well beyond these.respectively. Each of these is fairly survivable given the large increase in stability as such vessels heel over and should not have produced a significant permanent list through cargo shift. However, as you reduce the initial GM to anywhere near the IMO minimum of 0.15m the angles of heel tend to go off the scale with a steady angle of 24.3 degrees at 6.5 kn and 75 degrees at 10 kn! Neither of these would be realisable in practice due to the increasing stability as the ship heels, but with dynamic effects added, it is not difficult to see how extreme heel angles could be generated at the beginning of this turn (with 16 kn speed) with virtually guaranteed cargo shift to produce the 45 degree list.

So we now have 4 problems: why did the power fail, why did the rudder(s) lock hard over (after a power failure?), why was the metacentric height apparently so low and how did the vessel flood progressively to capsize? I will attempt a few calculations to test out the potential quantity of cargo shift required for a 30-45 degree list and come back later.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
25th Apr 2014, 19:09
Excellent post!

If the reports are correct about the modifications raising the CG 51cm, and a requirement to carry maximum water ballast not followed, and excessive loading of cargo, especially as containers on the main deck; would not all of these factors have either increased CG height or not reduced it?
Is there enough data to calculate the proportion of the excess cargo which would have had to be carried on the main deck in order to critically reduce the stability?

Could an initial heel have caused near empty fuel tanks to cut fuel flow (then leading to everything else)? I only ask because I've seen this happen once on a yacht (no, I wasn't the skipper, and yes, all the rest of us told the skipper to slow down before turning!)

IEWinkle
25th Apr 2014, 20:19
Further to Post 156 above, I have been able to estimate the effect of cargo shift equivalent to 30% of the vessel's displacement (about 3114 tonne) through average transverse distances 1.667 and 3.333m. This assumes the vessel has a centre casing running through most of its two vehicle decks which will inhibit cargo shift across what are probably 9m wide triple vehicle lanes. With the exception of the on-deck containers it is difficult to imagine cargo shifts greater than these figures if the decks were fairly well filled with vehicles. I have then assumed four different GM values, 0.15, 0.3, 0.6 and 1.0m and undertaken a wall-sided analysis to determine the approximate angles of list which would result. Whilst this will only be approximate it gives a good idea of potential of the shifting cargo to list the vessel. The results are given below:

At GM = 0.15m and cargo shift = 1.667m List = 23.98 degrees
At GM = 0.15m and cargo shift = 3.333m List = 29.70 degrees

At GM = 0.30m and cargo shift = 1.667m List = 22.95 degrees
At GM = 0.30m and cargo shift = 3.333m List = 28.97 degrees

At GM = 0.60m and cargo shift = 1.667m List = 20.85 degrees
At GM = 0.60m and cargo shift = 3.333m List = 27.44 degrees

At GM = 1.00m and cargo shift = 1.667m List = 18.13 degrees
At GM = 1.00m and cargo shift = 3.333m List = 25.39 degrees

From this it will be seen that even at relatively large GM values significant list can be generated with very little difference in the higher values generated when the GM is very low. Taken with my previous post, it would seem that a significant list might have been generated by the turn while at a relatively low (but technically legal) GM and from an angle in excess of at least 9 degrees some form of progressive flooding took place onto the vehicle deck to generate the large angles of list seem in the latter photos. This scenario precludes any need for external damage to the lower wing tanks, but does require faulty sealing mechanisms (such as scuppers) associated with the vehicle decks.

mixture
25th Apr 2014, 23:34
Just because the south Koreans do (or at least have repeatedly and continuously been shown to have done so in the past over many decades) manufacture very reliable computer monitors, TVs, refrigerators etc. for export, does not necessarily mean that their ferries / transportation systems etc. work (or are managed) equally well...

I was in South Korea recently and concur with the fact you can't make sweeping judgements about an entire country being excellent just because of some products.

For a start, Samsung et. al have only grown to the size they have because they were given a substantial kickstart by the government in the form of significant loans issued at highly preferable and discounted rates. Good on the government of the time for encouraging industrialisation but at the same time, its important not to look at the Korean conglomerates with rose tinted spectacles.... their growth and success was far from being simply organic from humble beginnings.

There are also some things the Koreans do badly, a few things that spring to mind are :
- Driving ... both taxi drivers and normal drivers are abysmal drivers, the standard of driving is atrocious.
- Taxis... 100% dumb magenta line shatnav followers... even if you are going to tourist hotspots like museums... it goes into the satnav.... they don't know anything.
- Town planning.... Amount of green space in Seoul is in the very very low single percentages.... its building building everywhere
- Air cleanliness.... (allegedly not all their fault, the natives blame the Chinese factories and dust from the Gobi desert .... but I think their internal traffic volumes etc. does't help matters)

However there are many positive things to be said about Korea too....especially the (generally) very helpful people and (generally) very good food.

IEWinkle
26th Apr 2014, 12:05
It is now claimed that the entire crew of 15 is in custody. Does anyone else think that a crew of 15 to operate such a ship is extremely small - or are they only counting the 'deck' crew rather than the 'engineers' and other 'hotel' staff?

tony draper
26th Apr 2014, 13:10
The news clips I watched said Navigation Crew,dunno what they mean by that 15 would be a bit thin for a entire ships crew,(or it would have been in my day) but a bit over the top for Navigation Officers.
:uhoh:

Fox3WheresMyBanana
26th Apr 2014, 13:23
From the links:
15 seaman crew; 8 navigation, 7 engineering
9 service crew: cooks, stewards etc

IEWinkle
26th Apr 2014, 13:48
Thanks Fox3WheresMyBanana. Even a total crew of 39 is very small for a potential passenger complement of 960.

uffington sb
26th Apr 2014, 18:22
No IEW, that a total of 15, 8 nav and 7 eng for the 'seaman' crew, and 9 service crew. A total of 24.

IEWinkle
26th Apr 2014, 19:30
No IEW, that a total of 15, 8 nav and 7 eng for the 'seaman' crew, and 9 service crew. A total of 24. Sorry for that! The lack of crew to organise the evacuation up to 960 passengers (her maximum complement) is astounding and goes some way to explain the chaos that ensued!

Super VC-10
26th Apr 2014, 19:44
It's all fifteen surviving crew. Some lost their lives doing their duty trying to evacuate passengers.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
26th Apr 2014, 22:21
I think the reason for the arrests is that it appears that there wasn't any evacuation organised by the seamen. They told the passengers to stay in their cabins, then left themselves. The 9 non-seamen crew apparently did their best to organise an evac., and 6 out the 9 died.

See here
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2014/04/23/2014042301319.html

p.s. one report now says 29 crew, 15 seaman and 14 non-seamen. All 15 seaman evacuated and are now under arrest. 9 of the 14 non-seamen crew died.

con-pilot
26th Apr 2014, 22:47
I'm one of those anal people that actually do pay attention to the safety briefing on an airliner, even though I probably know more about the aircraft I'm in and how to get out of it better than the FA giving the briefing does.

So when we are on a cruise ship, I triple my knowledge of how to get off the blasted thing. I learned how to launch the lifeboats and rafts, I track down a ship's officer to show me how. I've told my wife that if anything out of the usual happens, on with the lifevests and up to an open deck near the liferafts/boats. And I don't really care if it is the one assigned to us or not.

I'd rather look silly than drown.

If only those kids had done the same.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
26th Apr 2014, 22:52
Different society - I've taught Korean boys. Younger ones do what they are told by their elders without question, whatever the competence of the elders.

..and on ferries, I'm like you. I always travel within grabbing distance of a door to the deck, and I can find the lifejacket locker in the dark. My first 'stroll' is in fact me pacing out and remembering the turns. Total cowardice, but I'm alive to admit it!

con-pilot
26th Apr 2014, 23:01
Total cowardice, but I'm alive to admit it!

You and me both my friend, that's how I surived 42 years and 21,000 hours of flying. :ok:

500N
26th Apr 2014, 23:34
Fox

I was going o say the same thing re the kids.

Like you both, when I travel on whatever, I like to know how to get out, fast.
Includes buildings !

Fox3WheresMyBanana
27th Apr 2014, 00:03
The only time I can be sure my cowardice worked was pulling off a foggy motorway at night when I was down to a sensible 30mph on my motorcycle and all the other nutters were still doing 70+mph.
I crept down to the next junction on the shoulder and woke up an old friend who lived nearby and begged a piece of floor.
Next morning's news announced an 80 car pile-up with 2 dead just past that junction, just after I pulled off.

Oh, and the time I dived out of a valley when low flying as I completely lost depth perception, and another jet went up the same valley 20 minutes later and crashed.

Oh, and the time soloing the Atlantic when I steered my boat away from a nasty looking CB, which then spawned a tornado 20 minutes later, by which time I was just far enough away to escape.

Oh,....actually there are quite a few now I come to think about it!

Fox3WheresMyBanana
27th Apr 2014, 10:45
αυτός που φοβάται, δεν φοβάται


He who is afraid, is not afraid ?

Fox3WheresMyBanana
27th Apr 2014, 12:11
My Ancient Greek was useful after all!

airship
21st May 2014, 19:59
As many here suspected, the original ferry was rebuilt before being put back into service. According to this BBC report (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27342967), the M/V SEWOL was limited in her cargo-carrying capacity after the modifications: When disaster struck it was carrying 3,608 tonnes of cargo including 108 vehicles while the recommended limit was 987 tonnes.

Anywhere else but South Korea, one might imagine that the court would also award and impose "punitive damages" on the ferry company and their owners. But this is South Korea, where a handfull of families and their chaebols own and control the whole country.

Of course, we'll all and soon will forget that this tragedy ever happened if (more when) the chaebols manage it. So that we'll all be able to continue buying those cheap LED TVs, cars or whatever here in Europe or the USA...?! :}

TWT
11th Nov 2014, 08:37
S. Korean Ferry Captain Gets 36 Years in Prison - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/korean-ferry-captain-36-years-prison-26824358)