Hundreds missing as S Korea ferry sinks

[Oberon]

[TarJak]

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

There's also the possibility of the sharp turn causing a dramatic shift of balance in the cargo, leading to the ship listing beyond its safety point and taking on water as a result.

That is my lads considered opinion also...he also said it would not be unusual for a third officer to be at the helm if the plotted course was considered safe and free of potential navigational hazards but a senior officer would also always be either on the bridge or in the ships office which is usually directly behind and adjoining the bridge.

[Jimbuna]

Looks highly unlikely any more survivors will be found now.

South Korean officials have said the recovery operation after Wednesday's ferry disaster may take two months.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-27087243

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

That is my lads considered opinion also...he also said it would not be unusual for a third officer to be at the helm if the plotted course was considered safe and free of potential navigational hazards but a senior officer would also always be either on the bridge or in the ships office which is usually directly behind and adjoining the bridge.

Makes you wonder why, junior officer or not, such a radical turn was ordered, the depth under the keel looked to be fine, and it's not the sort of maneuver that you'd make even for stuffs and giggles, not unless you really wanted to be unemployed by the time you reached your destination.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Makes you wonder why, junior officer or not, such a radical turn was ordered, the depth under the keel looked to be fine, and it's not the sort of maneuver that you'd make even for stuffs and giggles, not unless you really wanted to be unemployed by the time you reached your destination.

Agreed...the lowest rank to have a watchkeeping certificate is a third officer so he or she are considered to be qualified and therefore capable of carrying out a bridge watch unsupervised.

Unfortunately my lad informs me their can be a world of difference in the weight said certificates hold and that very much depends on the country of issue regarding level of knowledge, competency and expertise required to pass the examinations.

I'll not post a league table for fear of being accused of bias but it is surprising too see the table toppers and especially those near the bottom.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Agreed...the lowest rank to have a watchkeeping certificate is a third officer so he or she are considered to be qualified and therefore capable of carrying out a bridge watch unsupervised.

Unfortunately my lad informs me their can be a world of difference in the weight said certificates hold and that very much depends on the country of issue regarding level of knowledge, competency and expertise required to pass the examinations.

I'll not post a league table for fear of being accused of bias but it is surprising too see the table toppers and especially those near the bottom.

Understandable. I guess that up until now the good quality of their vessels has hidden some of the more questionable actions of their officers.
Still, even a nub should surely know that if he pulls a turn like that, even if the cargo doesn't destabilise and cause the vessel to go past its 5 degree safety zone, the passengers are going to notice the lean and the sharp turn and questions are going to be asked.
Then again, I'm looking at it from a western point of view, so maybe there was an unknown factor involved. I would have thought if there was a collision hazard then someone would have said so by now, so the only explaination really is the Junior officer either wanting to show off to someone on board (maybe he wanted to give the students a bit of a thrill) or just seeing what it did.

Like the early days of the Costa Concordia, so many questions, not many answers.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Like the early days of the Costa Concordia, so many questions, not many answers.

One major common denominator there...each had a skipper who were not up to the task when the crap hit the fan.

[Jimbuna]

As I feared

The last communications between the South Korean ferry that sank on Wednesday and traffic services reveal panic and indecision by the crew.

In the newly released transcript, a crew member repeatedly asks if there were vessels on hand to rescue passengers if evacuation was ordered.

Details of the panic on the bridge emerged on Sunday, when the coastguard released a transcript of the last communications between the crew and controllers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-27096629

[Jimbuna]

The heat is being notched up.

S Korea leader condemns ferry crew

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".

Ms Park said that those to blame would have to take "criminal and civil" responsibility for their actions.

Divers are continuing to recover bodies from the ferry, as they gain access to more of the submerged hull.

The death toll now stands at 64, with 238 people still missing, most of them students from a school near Seoul.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-27100056

[Dmitry Markov]

This tragedy reminds me of "Admiral Nahimov" disaster in 1986 near Novorossiysk. Another catastrophe within reach of the shore - tens of vessels around, helos and thousands of people eager to help - and still hundreds of victims...

It still stays one of strongest memories of my childhood - because I happend to see gorgeous and beautiful "Nahimov" in Sochi sea port - she (in Russia we say "he") was one of the last steam liners in the world. We saw her departure in the evening - she was a sight to remember with all those lights, music and happy passengers - something you don't see every day living in Moscow or anywhere far from the seashore - just like a launch of a spacecraft. Then we were discussing her a lot with my parents - how nice it could be to take a voyage on her board - I even terrified my parents with pleas. Then some days later we' ve heard the sad news. I literally cried the whole day in a bedroom (I was a 6-year old kid)...

But what can be explained with "Nahimov" case - the vessel was much larger and sank much faster ( several minutes) due to severe damage after collision with "Peter Vasyov" as well as due to her age. But with "Sewol" - the ship was capsising much longer - about 1.5 hr from what I've read, she was not so old. Maybe I sound as dilettante - but aren't there any rules to order an evacuation when instruments show roll which is determined as dangerous in vessel's documents? Maybe the danger of the roll is determined not only by mere value but by sum of circumstances as well?

Anyway what I hate most of all in such cases - is irreversibility. I feel terribly sorry for all people there - not only for passengers and relatives, but for crew and rescue team members as well. What could they feel - seeing the ship submersing and understanding that hundreds of kids are still aboard and there's nothing they could do to save them... One of my friends was working as rescuer in the Emercom some time ago - it was very hard to look on his eyes after some exits to the distress calls.

We pray for all people there.

[Oberon]

I believe, and obviously Jim will have better knowledge than me, inside knowledge as they say, but most modern ships can survive a roll up to five degrees to port or starboard, beyond that it's a lot harder to recover, but some vessels can list up to sixty degrees either direction and recover from it.
However in this instance, the list likely displaced cargo which exacerbated the problem and caused the fatal roll.
In regards to procedures, I'd have said that if the vessel made a continued list beyond five degrees without coming back to vertical then it's time to get people to the lifeboats, however I honestly don't know if that's writtne procedure. Jim might know more.

[Jimbuna]

I've spoken to you know who (currently on a years paid leave studying for his Chief Officer ticket) and he informs me that at the 5 degrees point he would have ordered life jackets to be put on (which looks like the only correct step that was followed) and ordered everyone to their evacuation points.

Next step (presuming the emergency message/mayday call had already been made) the Captain in collaberation with the Chief Engineer would normally attempt to shift ballast to counter the list (on many ships today this can be done from the bridge).

The moment no righting was achieved and or the list was seen to be getting worse, the abandon ship order should have been given and the relevant authorities notified.

I've heard on the news today that the captain was informed of rescue vessels being only ten minutes sailing time away so for the life of me I don't know why he can argue being fearful of people being swept away...far better floating with a life jacket in the sea with imminent help than being stuck below deck watching your world turning upside down and mass panic as the water swept in

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I don't know why he can argue being fearful of people being swept away.

This has me perplexed as well. Don't most modern lifeboats, life rafts and life vests come equipped with a GPS locater? It's not like the ship was going down in a howling storm where every life raft would have been scattered for miles. It kinda makes me wonder if he underestimated the seriousness of the situation and was trying to avoid an embarrassing and expensive evacuation.

He found his own raft soon enough.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

This has me perplexed as well. Don't most modern lifeboats, life rafts and life vests come equipped with a GPS locater? It's not like the ship was going down in a howling storm where every life raft would have been scattered for miles. It kinda makes me wonder if he underestimated the seriousness of the situation and was trying to avoid an embarrassing and expensive evacuation.

He found his own raft soon enough.

Rgr that