Cove balconies effectively make a ship have a dangerously low freeboard

Has anybody though of the fact that cove balconies may allow seawater to enter the ship in very rough seas? Basically since they are located only a few decks above the waterline a wave can enter through the cove balcony and then enter the ship, and in the process it can also sweep people back out to sea, also if your have very rough seas in a freak storm, a ship will not have to tilt very far on either side for the sea water to simply go into the ship through the cove balconies. Basically with cove balconies the level at which sea water can enter the ship in large quantities in a very bad storm is 2 decks lower.

https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=cove+balcony+carnival&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQj93rweLMAhXCq6YKHTx2ANQQsAQIKA&biw=1366&bih=667#imgrc=cr6BFX2tOk-1SM%3A

This does help to explain all those cruise ships sinking, and all those cruise passengers being swept out to sea, never to be found.

And, it really is amazing the way that the Major Cruise lines are hiding all of the reports of passengers being grabbed and pulled back into the ocean from those low balconies. :eek:

Bob

What an amazing waste of a thread! :mad:

Did you think that these balconies were just a wild idea of Carnival's or are the IMO, the classification societies, and even the USCG (as port state authority) totally ignorant of ship design or is it a major conspiracy?

USCG allows an overboard of balcony guests at a rate of 15 parts per million.

Oh wait...I'm think I'm confusing that with something down in your department. ;):D

Has anybody though of the fact that cove balconies may allow seawater to enter the ship in very rough seas?

I didn't, but I don't think you've found a real problem. Yet, I think safety needs inquisitive mind like yours. You wouldn't be the first warning about icebergs and be laughed away by the crowd. Accidents happen because someone didn't think of something.

The bashing you received in this thread is sad, to say the least.

I didn't, but I don't think you've found a real problem. Yet, I think safety needs inquisitive mind like yours. You wouldn't be the first warning about icebergs and be laughed away by the crowd. Accidents happen because someone didn't think of something.

 

The bashing you received in this thread is sad, to say the least.

Safety does indeed need inquisitive minds, however the way you present your concerns plays a large part in them being taken seriously.

Well thought out and considered posts received well thought out and considered replies.

If you look at ren0312's original post, it links to a shot of the Carnival magic which does not show a true perspective of how high the cove balconies are from the water line.

This motor coach next to the Carnival Magic adds some perspective:

It also does not adequately show the balcony railings, nor the designed and built in openings to allow large amounts of excess sea spray or rogue wave water to return back to the sea.

from the Carnival Dream:

So while I do not think asking the question is wrong, asking if anyone has thought that it could happen is ridiculous since the amount of regulatory bodies and approvals from CG's, let alone the underwriters are immensely more cautious and stringent than in your reference to the Titanic sinking in 1912.

ex techie

That ship has all the style and design of a Bic razor blade.

What an eyesore.

ex techie

That ship has all the style and design of a Bic razor blade.

 

What an eyesore.

 

 

 

ex techie

To each his or her own. I think Carnival's newer ships are beautiful. Now Royal Caribbean's newer floating hotels are hideous. They have effectively made it so that their ships no longer look like ships.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

That ship has all the style and design of a Bic razor blade.

What an eyesore.

I agree. The new mega ships coming out look hideous...then again, I always thought Carnival's ships looked hideous (except Spirit Class). They even went back and made their ugly Fantasy Class uglier by adding those ridiculous looking balconies. On other lines, HAL's Koningsdam looks like a container ship. NCL Escape looks like it'll easily capsize due to being so tall. Oasis Class just looks weird from behind due to the way the superstructure extends over the hull.

Gone are the days of the beautiful Radiance Class. :(

Best views of Venice, the Stockholm Archipelago, Sydney Harbour, Hong Kong, Havana, Southampton Water, Gibraltar, Istanbul, and a dozen other sea views around the world are from a modern mega-size cruise ship.

Why?

Because those on the ship are the only ones whose panorama isn't spoilt by some ugly hulking-great top-heavy barge loaded with chicken coops. :D

JB :)

I didn't, but I don't think you've found a real problem. Yet, I think safety needs inquisitive mind like yours. You wouldn't be the first warning about icebergs and be laughed away by the crowd. Accidents happen because someone didn't think of something.

 

The bashing you received in this thread is sad, to say the least.

Safety does indeed need inquisitive minds, however the way you present your concerns plays a large part in them being taken seriously.

Well thought out and considered posts received well thought out and considered replies.

 

If you look at ren0312's original post, it links to a shot of the Carnival magic which does not show a true perspective of how high the cove balconies are from the water line.

 

This motor coach next to the Carnival Magic adds some perspective:

 

It also does not adequately show the balcony railings, nor the designed and built in openings to allow large amounts of excess sea spray or rogue wave water to return back to the sea.

 

 

So while I do not think asking the question is wrong, asking if anyone has thought that it could happen is ridiculous since the amount of regulatory bodies and approvals from CG's, let alone the underwriters are immensely more cautious and stringent than in your reference to the Titanic sinking in 1912.

 

ex techie

Amazed, while I find some of your threads a little off the wall, they do tend to be thought out. The OP makes statements like "dangerously low freeboard", when he most likely has no idea what the term freeboard means, and does not present any consideration about how far the ship would have to heel over to present these cabins to the seas. Or how large a sea would need to be to rise to get to these cabins. The OP is presenting "troll bait" or "click bait" to stir the pot, and perhaps worry new cruisers. He is not interested in constructive debate, since in my first post here I asked for data, and he/she has not returned with any data, other than to acknowledge the fact that the doors have watertight closures.

If he/she feels that the naval architects failed to consider this aspect of ships, he/she must feel that there are other things that are not considered that affect ship's safety. While no system is perfect, the IMO brings together experienced maritime personnel from many countries to determine the best possible designs based on multiple viewpoints.

If the OP were to present some arguments to support the case that these are dangerous, we could continue the debate, but if its just to put an inflammatory statement out there, then I resent the implication impugning the collective knowledge of the maritime world.

As Techie says, the largest incentive for Carnival not to do dangerous things is insurance. The class societies act as insurance underwriters, and without their approval, the ship doesn't get insurance nor does it get a certificate of registry from the flag state, and hence cannot sail at all.

So while I do not think asking the question is wrong, asking if anyone has thought that it could happen is ridiculous since the amount of regulatory bodies and approvals from CG's, let alone the underwriters are immensely more cautious and stringent than in your reference to the Titanic sinking in 1912.

 

ex techie

I agree that times have changed since the Titanic. Yet accidents do still happen, even with all regulations in place. I don't know much about ships, but I do read almost weekly about things that went wrong in pharmacies and what lessons should be learned. A good many of those errors are really hard to prevent with more rules, and sometimes rules are even the major reason the error happened in the first place. For instance, color coding dosages has lead to nurses relying too much on them instead of actually doing the calculations. On ships, I've seen signs (by regulation) in bathrooms "please use a hand towel to open the door", when there was also button to open them automatically. My (uneducated) guess is that "please use your elbow to push the button" would lead to less noro cases yet the sign implies you should use the door handle. Similar for the FDA warnings on menus about undercooked food, which perfectly might lead passengers to think that FDA has somehow "approved" or even tested all items without a star.

About 20 years ago we were presented with a case study which looked at all the things that had to go wrong simultaneously for the Herald of Free Enterprise to sink the way it did (IIRC the list had about 20 items, so even if they thought about it, after multiplying the odds the risk was 0). The conclusion was that risk calculating has an inherent bias to ignore the extremely small risks that do appear in reality. OP's question however, doesn't fall into that category :)

Amazed, while I find some of your threads a little off the wall, they do tend to be thought out.

Thank you :D

The OP is presenting "troll bait" or "click bait" to stir the pot, and perhaps worry new cruisers. He is not interested in constructive debate, since in my first post here I asked for data, and he/she has not returned with any data, other than to acknowledge the fact that the doors have watertight closures.

Looking at the other threads he started I don't think he was trolling, but if he was then he's well fed by now instead of ignored.

I think post #3 actually says "Yes, they thought of that, did consider it a possible problem, hence the doors". Apparently that was enough answer, and he didn't feel the need to hold a debate about a risk that he now knew was taken care of. Besides, I'd leave a room filled with laughter about the stupidest question ever quickly as well :)

I agree that times have changed since the Titanic. Yet accidents do still happen, even with all regulations in place. I don't know much about ships, but I do read almost weekly about things that went wrong in pharmacies and what lessons should be learned. A good many of those errors are really hard to prevent with more rules, and sometimes rules are even the major reason the error happened in the first place. For instance, color coding dosages has lead to nurses relying too much on them instead of actually doing the calculations. On ships, I've seen signs (by regulation) in bathrooms "please use a hand towel to open the door", when there was also button to open them automatically. My (uneducated) guess is that "please use your elbow to push the button" would lead to less noro cases yet the sign implies you should use the door handle. Similar for the FDA warnings on menus about undercooked food, which perfectly might lead passengers to think that FDA has somehow "approved" or even tested all items without a star.

 

About 20 years ago we were presented with a case study which looked at all the things that had to go wrong simultaneously for the Herald of Free Enterprise to sink the way it did (IIRC the list had about 20 items, so even if they thought about it, after multiplying the odds the risk was 0). The conclusion was that risk calculating has an inherent bias to ignore the extremely small risks that do appear in reality. OP's question however, doesn't fall into that category :)

The difference between what was posted by the OP and your analogy is that the OP is saying there is an inherent design flaw in the ship design, and your medical analogy is about procedural incompetence, complacency and or negligence.

The Herald of Free Enterprise accident did lead to some changes to SOLAS regs for ROLO ferries, such as an increased freeboard, and IMO regs that prohibit open vehicle decks of the same length.

However it was not solely the design of the ferry or weather conditions that caused it to sink, it was failure to not follow SOP's by the boatswain and First Officer. Also that the SOP's did not require the Captain to get a verbal confirmation from his staff that the doors had indeed been closed as there were no indicators on the bridge to show their status.

From Wiki:

In October 1983, the Herald's sister ship Pride of Free Enterprise had sailed from Dover to Zeebrugge with the bow doors open, after its assistant boatswain fell asleep.

So this had happened before, but due to the weather conditions on that day, it did not lead to water ingress.

However, procedures to ensure it never happened again were not implemented or a simple traffic light system installed to show the doors were open or secured.

The investigation discovered communication problems within the crew and shoreside were inherent along with a very causal regard to procedures.

Much like the Concordia, it was not the ships design that cause the ship to sink and heal over, it was the failure to follow SOP and lack of due diligence to perform adequate watch and position monitoring.

And it is quite possible that no lives would have been lost if, again, SOP had been followed and the order to muster and abandon ship had been given promptly as soon as the extent of the damage were known.

Unfortunately we can design the flaws out of vessels, but we cannot totally design the human flaws out of ship operation or by medical staff.

ex techie

OP, you can always wear you life vest 24/7 if this concerns you so much.

The difference between what was posted by the OP and your analogy is that the OP is saying there is an inherent design flaw in the ship design, and your medical analogy is about procedural incompetence, complacency and or negligence.

Unfortunately we can design the flaws out of vessels, but we cannot totally design the human flaws out of ship operation or by medical staff.

ex techie

I don't think you can design all flaws out of vessels or procedures. The examples I used were to show the design itself could be faulty by not taking into account enough that people will, at some point, not behave like they should or are expected to. Also, the design itself could be faulty because it's again people who do the designing. I think it's very well possible that team A (cabin design) thought team B (deciding where to put watertight doors to make compartments) would take care of the watertight doors and vice versa, the wave testers had little time that week, combined with a hangover after celebrating testing the 500th ship, and skipped one test that never yielded a problem anyway, the inspection didn't think of checking X after putting much scrutiny to Y which went wrong yesterday, and everyone just assumed that when the specs said to include cove balconies in the design, someone already tested the idea. Again, the odds are small, but that's why accidents are called accidents.

One of the most basic, simple, easy to detect errors would be mixing up meters and feet. Yet Lockheed Martin, without undoubtedly tons of procedures to check, test, re-check, re-test, did.

The fact that these balconies do have watertight doors even at this height does mean that OP was pointing at a real risk, albeit one that was taken care of which OP didn't know.

bad links

To each his or her own. I think Carnival's newer ships are beautiful. Now Royal Caribbean's newer floating hotels are hideous. They have effectively made it so that their ships no longer look like ships.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

Absolutely it is to each their own taste.

I cannot say the Vista, while it may be a beautiful ship on the inside is IMO beautiful on the outside.

It like Carnival have finally found a protractor and are using it and not just a ruler.

I won't post the photo as an insert as it is a very hi-res picture, but the scaffolding for the Sky Ride is hideous, as is the exposed rear side of the whale tail to see.

Here is the picture link:

_HR.jpg?n=5137&width=1540&height=866&mode=crop&Anchor=MiddleCenter"]http://www.travelweekly.com/uploadedImages/All_TW_Art/2016/041816/T0418VISTA[2]_HR.jpg?n=5137&width=1540&height=866&mode=crop&Anchor=MiddleCenter

And talking of rears.....

That is one UGLY butt. Uglier than the Quantum class, but not on the scale of MSC's project Seaside ships.

I agree. The new mega ships coming out look hideous...then again, I always thought Carnival's ships looked hideous (except Spirit Class). They even went back and made their ugly Fantasy Class uglier by adding those ridiculous looking balconies. On other lines, HAL's Koningsdam looks like a container ship. NCL Escape looks like it'll easily capsize due to being so tall. Oasis Class just looks weird from behind due to the way the superstructure extends over the hull.

 

Gone are the days of the beautiful Radiance Class. :(

Agreed about the Koningsdam.

And we cannot forget the shopping cart:

It is easy to see how MSC transferred this:

To this:

And now this monstrosity:

ex techie

I don't think you can design all flaws out of vessels or procedures. The examples I used were to show the design itself could be faulty by not taking into account enough that people will, at some point, not behave like they should or are expected to. Also, the design itself could be faulty because it's again people who do the designing. I think it's very well possible that team A (cabin design) thought team B (deciding where to put watertight doors to make compartments) would take care of the watertight doors and vice versa, the wave testers had little time that week, combined with a hangover after celebrating testing the 500th ship, and skipped one test that never yielded a problem anyway, the inspection didn't think of checking X after putting much scrutiny to Y which went wrong yesterday, and everyone just assumed that when the specs said to include cove balconies in the design, someone already tested the idea. Again, the odds are small, but that's why accidents are called accidents.

 

One of the most basic, simple, easy to detect errors would be mixing up meters and feet. Yet Lockheed Martin, without undoubtedly tons of procedures to check, test, re-check, re-test, did.

 

The fact that these balconies do have watertight doors even at this height does mean that OP was pointing at a real risk, albeit one that was taken care of which OP didn't know.

I did not say or meant to imply that human beings could design 100% of all flaws out of vessel design.

Obviously that is something that would be impossible to accomplish.

However the design you pointed to was easily solvable and it did not happen, even after a similar event took place.

And you also are pointing to a vessel that was launched in 1980.

Technology and automated safety systems have improved beyond recognition in todays world, and although they provide a first line of defense, they are not foolproof or not even subject to false readings or breakdown.

That is why it is important to have a human element to checks to check and check again that the systems and SOP's are followed thru and not be complacent.

And sorry, not, your team A and team B theory is not how it happens or works.

Team a and b have supervisors working above them that are not concerned of design and aesthetics, but in regulation compliance.

The designs a shipyard or client propose are inspected by consultants and regulatory bodes and underwriters, and if necessary correctional notes added before they can proceed to the next stage of even considering

This is all before the first metal plate of the ship is even cut.

And even once the ship is built, sea trials are not just like you taking a car for a test drive to see how quickly it accelerates and brakes, they are so any design flaws or standards that have to be met by the shipyard are actually met, are actually functioning correctly, and can actually do the job.

Or it's back to the shipyard for alterations and repairs.

This doesn't happen often due to the diligence of the ships designers, their supervisors, the regulatory bodies, insurers. Without all of these inspections by so many people and organizations, a ship would not be considered seaworthy and the CG on top would not allow it to sail.

Meters and feet.

Yep! Lockheed Martin screwed up!

I bet you if Lockhead Martin had a penalty clause in their contract, it would not have happened.

And as above, they could not test the orbiter on Earth, like they can sea trials on a ship.

Of course when you are building multi ton ship segments, sometimes measurements go wrong and things do not always line up as they should do.

Fortunately the tolerances when building a ship are a lot larger and different than navigational commands to an Mars orbiter.

When a ship is built will everything work and function as per plan. NEVER.

Just look at the Carnival Vista. Delayed schedule, and on it shake down cruise, it is alleged that a revolving door from the buffet was turning the wrong way due to being built in Europe and they expect to enter from the opposite side.

Easy fix, and problem solved.

If you look back at the OP's STATEMENT, not question:

Has anybody though of the fact that cove balconies may allow seawater to enter the ship in very rough seas? Basically since they are located only a few decks above the waterline a wave can enter through the cove balcony and then enter the ship, and in the process it can also sweep people back out to sea, also if your have very rough seas in a freak storm, a ship will not have to tilt very far on either side for the sea water to simply go into the ship through the cove balconies.

They have STATED not questioned if this is a problem, and I'm guessing along with others, they posted this with the intent to scare or worry people or grab attention, when they could have posted that they had concerns about the height above the waterline, and does anyone know what procedures they may have in place to prevent a large wave entering the balcony and possibly wash people back out to sea?

What angle would the ship have to reach for the waterline to reach the cover balconies?

They posted like a sensationalist tabloid paper or tv station stating things that could easily be explained in a calm and considered manner.

ex techie

When I posted in this thread it was because I thought OP wasn't trolling, had a genuine concern, and didn't deserve responses about a next Sharknado movie. The way he expressed it might be over the top, but then again if someone thinks there's a wolf, he should cry wolf.

I think we agree 95%. I just have a smaller expectation of the outcome of regulations, SOPs and nosey insurers to ensure safety as they are intented to than you do. The biggest reason is that I see things go wrong (albeit in an entirely different industry) where the exact same checks are in place as well. Then again, the numbers do say that cruise ships don't sink that often and even when they do you'd probably survive. A sliding door accident that was enough to get a passenger $21,000,000 in court also tells me that any potential risk will be taken very, very seriously. (And leaves me wondering how much of my fare for my next cruise is used to pay the insurance companies)

Let's just agree to disagree on the remaining 5%?

When I posted in this thread it was because I thought OP wasn't trolling, had a genuine concern, and didn't deserve responses about a next Sharknado movie. The way he expressed it might be over the top, but then again if someone thinks there's a wolf, he should cry wolf.

 

I think we agree 95%. I just have a smaller expectation of the outcome of regulations, SOPs and nosey insurers to ensure safety as they are intented to than you do. The biggest reason is that I see things go wrong (albeit in an entirely different industry) where the exact same checks are in place as well. Then again, the numbers do say that cruise ships don't sink that often and even when they do you'd probably survive. A sliding door accident that was enough to get a passenger $21,000,000 in court also tells me that any potential risk will be taken very, very seriously. (And leaves me wondering how much of my fare for my next cruise is used to pay the insurance companies)

 

Let's just agree to disagree on the remaining 5%?

Oh absolutely!

I 100% agree to disagree about the 5%! lol!

I feel I have to say this however.

If you or anyone has any doubts as to the quality of the workmanship and design of the shipyard, a ship designer, the regulatory bodies, or the company and crew they employ and their seamanship, then you should not step aboard.

I would not step aboard a ship, plane, train or whatever if I did not have complete confidence in that they would operate the vessel or mode of transport to the best of their abilities and under the watchful eye of others that are there to protect us.

Also, that those that live and work aboard for many months at a time, far longer than a regular cruise, would knowingly endanger their own lives by skipping maintenance or cut corners.

But ship does happen. And that is a calculated risk that is very very low in todays world.

ex techie

(And leaves me wondering how much of my fare for my next cruise is used to pay the insurance companies)

 

Let's just agree to disagree on the remaining 5%?

While "hull" insurance (covers the value of the ship itself) is typically covered by third party insurers, "P&I" (Protection & Indemnity) insurance, is handled in a pretty unique way in the maritime industry:

P&I insurance covers:

Loss of life, injury and sickness of crew, passengers and third parties, except for liabilities under statutory compensation acts such as USL&H, Jones Act or state Workers' Compensation

Damage to cargo on board the vessel

Damage to piers, docks, jetties and other fixed floating objects

Wreck removal costs

Collision liability

P&I insurance is handled by insurance "clubs". These clubs are groups of shipowners who feel that their ships carry the same risk level due to trade (cruise, tanker, dry cargo), route, flag state, class society, and past management practices. These owners then look back over the past 10 years or so, and determine that all P&I claims for the 100 ships (for example) in the club have totaled $100 million. So, they set the annual premium at $100,000 ($100 million/100 ships/10 years). So, each ship owner ponies up $100k per ship, and the club then uses this money to pay claims for any ship in the club. If claims are less than the annual premiums, the club may return money to the owners, and if claims are more than the premiums (and the investment income from the premiums), then the club as a whole will pony up more money, up to the specified limits set when the club was formed, and then the individual owner is responsible for any further claims. Under performing owners (more claims than average for the club) will be kicked out of the club. So, for things like passenger personal injury, loss of life, etc., the cruise lines, and shipping companies in general, are "self-insured".

Also, that those that live and work aboard for many months at a time, far longer than a regular cruise, would knowingly endanger their own lives by skipping maintenance or cut corners.

 

But ship does happen. And that is a calculated risk that is very very low in todays world.

 

ex techie

Ship does happen and when it does human error is often the cause in one way or another. Would a crew member knowingly endanger their own lives? Probably not, but having lived onboard many ships over the years I have seen many maintenance checks skipped or corners cut but thankfully the right chain of events did not occur that would have made them a problem. I do agree with you that we need to trust in the professionals to keep us safe but I can also see that sometimes they do let us down.

Although this is a slightly different situation, we did a river boat cruise recently. We were on the lowest deck. Our porthole was above water although it did get splashed but I am sure that the floor of the cabin and thus our feet were definitely below the waterline. We did not sink.

DON

While "hull" insurance (covers the value of the ship itself) is typically covered by third party insurers, "P&I" (Protection & Indemnity) insurance, is handled in a pretty unique way in the maritime industry:

 

P&I insurance is handled by insurance "clubs".

Thank you, that's quite interesting! It's the same way farmers insured themselves a long time ago against haystack fires. It's also how self-employed people are creating so called "bread funds" now in The Netherlands for when one of the members of the club gets sick. That's a lot cheaper than a standard insurance company, enabling social pressure to be used to weed out the cases that someone's not really sick. Many "normal" insurance companies still have a name that points to "mutual insurance".

I would not step aboard a ship, plane, train or whatever if I did not have complete confidence in that they would operate the vessel or mode of transport to the best of their abilities and under the watchful eye of others that are there to protect us.

I step on ships because they feel safe; a lot of things have to go wrong, but they can go wrong. But even then you're still on a massive structure that gives you hours before it actually sinks. Even while flying is probably safer when you look at the statistics (I didn't check and you cannot really compare one hour aboard a ship or a plane), that feeling of being at least a bit in control makes me comfortable embarking. If cruise ships would need a full 100.00% compliance towards the rules and would sink otherwise, I wouldn't be on a ship. Nobody, not even the crew is perfect.