The Norwegian Cruise Ship List Nearing 20%--Why Not Pump the Water Out?

Really, it's 20° list, not 20%.

Thanks for the history lesson.

Is that 20% (11.3°) or 20°? Neither angle seems extreme, but we don't have the geometry or stability data for this vessel.

it's my understanding that there was an explosion in the engine room possibly blowing out the hull and bulk heads. i'm confident there's a plan in place to save the ship, or they're still investigating the damage.. i doubt if they're concerned about it sinking.

Salvage companies have patches/tarps/adhesives/other that should quickly be able to stop most of the influx, leading to then stablilizing that patch, and then, pumping the residual water until a dry-dock repair can replace the plates/bulkheads, etc. Even if two or even three bulkheads are damaged, it ought to have enough compartments to stop the influx and thereby the DEGREE of list. Maybe those compartments provident closing is dependent on electronics which may have been trashed? One great thing, the ship is dead in the water. It was hypothesized that the Titanic would NOT have sunk, except that after a dead stop to assess the water was already up to the mail-room, Ismay(architect/designer of Titanic) demanded, (and Smith stupidly caved) that Smith start-up the Titanic, the forward speed ENSURING that the 1st 6 compartments WOULD fill with a "cascade-effect" thereby filling the next, and the next, until the ship sank. I maintain if the ship had stayed still and buckets were mustered (this would have necessitated mustering steerage, second class, and anyone ELSE able to "bucket-brigade" the overflow of 5th into 6th would have been prevented, and Titanic would have been afloat for Carpathia's arrival, instead of Carpathia arriving two hours or more after the sinking. I say this, because one of the wooden-hulled, non-subdivided paddle steamers of the 1850s was kept afloat two hours in a gale, by 200-300 bucket bailing pass engers. Also, a powerful auxillary pump in an engine-room near the stern, was Not brought into play by the engine room crew that was trying to shore-up compartment/bulkhead #6 which failed under tons of water, completely dooming the ship. Other experts claim, backing-accross the Atlantic might have worked if no major storms were encountered. Also, the California was SEEN, maybe 10 miles away, a collapsible lifeboat should have been launched to try to wake it up, and help take-off passengers. With a clear sea and no collisions, California might have rescued most of the passengers.

The answer to your question, is that regardless of the built in safeguards, rigorous training, etc. In a real life situation.................people will panic. It never works.

But the passengers did NOT panic, none lost/injured during evacuation. Maybe some of this has to do with Salvage laws. If a sea-going tug throws a tow-rope to a ship in distress, if the distressed ship "accepts" the tow, then salvage laws apply, and the tug could "own" the ship. Maybe there's a standing order from Corporate, that if you accept a tow, your job is forefit, because you've given-away the ship? So then the ship safely reaches port, and local dock-side fire people over-fill it? From the "top-heavy-'look'" of them, current cruise ships are, imo, "capsize-disasters 'waiting... to happen'", with or without periodically threatened Islamic Jihad attacks against them.

The top-heavy look is apparent when the decks below the waterline are ignored

Complete guess....................................It probably has more to do with insurance and money than anything else.

Exactly!!!!

GA

As I recall and it has been a long time since I had to consider the situation but a lot depends on whether or not the ship has been abandoned. If all crew members therefore representatives of the owner have abandoned ship then the Law of Salvage would apply. Captain Kurt Carlsen of the Flying Enterprise didn't abandon his ship and stayed on to man tow ropes. I believe that as long as he stayed aboard salvage rights couldn't be claimed.

I took rolls of 35 degrees to each side after a during a storm in the Indian Ocean back in 1960 and the fact that we had 4 locomotives as deck cargo didn't help our stability. If it had gotten any worse we had orders to cut two loose. The 20 degrees isn't that much of a problem. If there was any power aboard ship they should have been transferring water in the ballast tanks from the one side to the other and pumping out the excess water. It sounds like they weren't able to do the normal things that can be done aboard ship to right it.

Lack of water tight integrity has sunk as many ships as loose lips

"Why not use chemicals, foams? Help me out"

The type fire extinguishing agent used depends upon the circumstances; fire fighting is not a "by the numbers" routine.

If using fresh water on electrical components poses less damage to the components than the fire why not use fresh water. Chemical extinguishing agents destroy electrical components as does some foams and saltwater too. The greatest help of extinguishing electrical fires is to secure the power first.

If the power is secured while fighting the fire electrical driven pumps don't squirt water but water tight integrity will save your bacon........

20 degree list is manageable and an adjacent compartment can be flooded to control list too

Water is more effective. Chemicals can be an extra problem in confined spaces.

I think if you research a little further, you will note mention of the ship taking in water and the hull being inspected by divers.

The amount of water to cause that level of list is several factors above the tonnage to put out a relatively minor fire (given it was put out relatively quickly, bodies found and removed, before significant list). It is more likely the explosion has split a seam, or some object holed the hull.

"Fraud"; The shipping line is quite successful and 'fully booked' - But equally, it may be service pressure and postponing maintenance are contributing factors.

A note on salvage rights. The service of a tug is valued against the peril of the ship, in hind sight. Providing a 'tow' does not mean you own the vessel in distress, just a certain fatness of fee.

thank you for the clarifications. Outside of dry-dock, then, there's not much to stop influx of water from damage on the outside. Why wouldn't they bring in extra-pumps, dockside? I was devil's advocate on the Fraud, but can't companies be "profitable" but WANT a higher-level... of profitability? That's why the Norway was broken-up, rather than converting to cruise-ship trade? If not the Norway, maybe I was thinking of the France?

As I read it, they pulled out the pump crews inside on OH&S grounds when the list was winning. Then they cut holes in the hull to facilitate bigger pumps without crew inside. Last heard, this was winning. They also have a crane assisting keeping it upright.

All in all, it seemed a fairly competent and safety aware operation.

This good news. Where do you obtain your sourcing? European newspapers? Our media last said they still thought there was a danger of capsize. Wonder WHY they mention the ship... without an accurate update?

Since when do journalists get technical topics right?

Hell, quite a few "engineers" fail in this, too.

Most countries have English language newspapers, even TV news, on the web.

It's not a bad practice, if you see something on the local news about an international event, to go to that places media. This was quite useful during the Chilean Mine disaster, the Japanese Tsunami and the Egyptian crises and .... Try it, you might like it.

But, I just checked the US reports and all above is mentioned on one of the channels. Perhaps change your supplier