Do modern cruise ships have collision alarms?

[Fury1995]

Is there such a thing? I thought I remembered something like that on a bridge tour once..

[AlpineJag]

AIS is a collision detection system used for tracking other ships locations.

[sarafinadh]

ALL boats have collision alarms...

 

They are silent and involve increasing vibrations and jerks, in proportion to the severity of the collisions.

 

Very similar to earthquake alarms...

 

Ok, that was a joke, but really, you don't need an alarm for a boat collision or an earthquake. You KNOW when you've had one!

[Hunwolf]

Unfortunately, this ship did not have a "you can't fix stupid" alarm.

[Fury1995]

ALL boats have collision alarms...

 

They are silent and involve increasing vibrations and jerks, in proportion to the severity of the collisions.

 

Very similar to earthquake alarms...

 

Ok, that was a joke, but really, you don't need an alarm for a boat collision or an earthquake. You KNOW when you've had one!

 

 

I meant for prevention. Like a computer that can calculate your current rate and heading and the surround area (radar/sonar) and alert the vessel that it's too close or in the direct path of a stationary or moving object.

[mcrcruiser]

We are no experts but today with all the advanced technology, we would think that all ships have sufficient sophicated devices to prevent more tragedys from happening in the future:rolleyes:.

 

Another thing is that the headquarters of these cruise sghips should be able to know the cruising paths of their ships at all times ,not only for the life safety ;but ,these mega ships are $1/2 billion & up in cost:rolleyes:;) .

[sarafinadh]

Unfortunately, this ship did not have a "you can't fix stupid" alarm.

Clearly. Let's design and market one. We would be rich ; -)

 

I meant for prevention. Like a computer that can calculate your current rate and heading and the surround area (radar/sonar) and alert the vessel that it's too close or in the direct path of a stationary or moving object.

Ahh... now that is a different kettle of fish.

 

Simple radar locates other vessels and obstacles and lights them up on a screen allowing the navigator to *see* what is all around the ship. Radar does not show everything, but it's pretty foolproof about what it does show.

 

AIS, mentioned earlier is a more sophisticated system, but one which relies on the users on both sides, allowing for more user error. With AIS each vessel, small or large, has a specific id/registration that is tracked by the satellite systems all over the globe. In this way ships can *see* each other and know what they are seeing. This only works on ships that have AIS transponders, and have them on. And they only prevent collisions if someone is paying attention to them.

 

In both cases alarms can be set to sound when something comes with in a preset perimeter.

 

So while you don't need an alarm to tell you if you have been hit, these alarms can be very useful.

 

In this case however, the rock was under the water and would not have had an AID transponder signaling, and thus would have been of no help.

 

In this case they needed to be looking at a depth sounder, which looks at what is below the boat. Had they noticed they were in (relatively) shallow water, they could have taken preventative measures before hitting the rocks.

 

All of this technology is very solid and established, but of course, is only as good as the clown who is using it...

 

I can't upload images to this site but you can go here http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/ and see what the tracking system looks like. Currently the AIS for the Concordia is not on.

[sarafinadh]

We are no experts but today with all the advanced technology, we would think that all ships have sufficient sophicated devices to prevent more tragedys from happening in the future:rolleyes:.

 

Another thing is that the headquarters of these cruise sghips should be able to know the cruising paths of their ships at all times ,not only for the life safety ;but ,these mega ships are $1/2 billion & up in cost:rolleyes:;) .

 

The dilemma here is, as is often the case, not a lack of technology. In this case there were multiple redundant systems aboard the Concordia that would have been providing the information needed to safely navigate the waters they were in.

 

The problem lies with user error (See: 'You can't fix stupid' below.)

 

Something else to note here. These waters have been plied by ships, large and small, for millennium. The Captain's claim that the *rocks were uncharted* is ludicrous to anyone with an ounce of navigational experience.

 

This was entirely human error.

 

All first hand accounts note that those clever collision alarms that vibrate and jerk went off FIRST and then the lights (supposed electrical system issues) flickered and were replaced by the emergency gensets.

[Red Fox]

Is there such a thing? I thought I remembered something like that on a bridge tour once..

 

ARPA radars will alarm if an acquired target is predicted to enter the set CPA limit (closest point of approach) and for bow cross situations.

 

ECDIS will alarm if set up correctly for the ship straying a certain distance from its planned route and if it leaves its safe depth of water. They are often hooked up to the radar as well.

 

Echo sounders can be set to alarm at certain depths.

 

But too many alarms can be just as bad as not enough.

 

Despite all the equipment onboard nothing can replace the mark 1 eyeball!

 

AIS is a collision detection system used for tracking other ships locations.

 

AIS is one of many aids to navigation available but basing your collision avoidance decisions on its information alone is a big no no.

[robsaw]

Firstly, all navigation and collision avoidance aids do no good if the master of the vessel deliberately takes a different than programmed course and/or ignores the warnings. Secondly, neither radar nor sonar will help when the issue is simply setting a course too close to hazardous shores in a massive vessel that cannot maneouvre with sufficient dexterity to avoid hazards that can only be detected with moments notice.

[ehfl]

Collision alarms use radar to detect other ships on a collision course. They would not be effective for underwater obstacles. Modern GPS systems can automatically notify you and/or steer around underwater obstacles that are charted, however you have to enable this.

[Quasar1011]

Despite all the equipment onboard nothing can replace the mark 1 eyeball!

But hasn't Schettino said that he was navigating by sight? At night? :confused::eek:

[OldSeaDog]

He may well have been manually steering the ship, but he was in no way "navigating."

[Steppy08]

We are no experts but today with all the advanced technology, we would think that all ships have sufficient sophicated devices to prevent more tragedys from happening in the future:rolleyes:.

 

Another thing is that the headquarters of these cruise sghips should be able to know the cruising paths of their ships at all times ,not only for the life safety ;but ,these mega ships are $1/2 billion & up in cost:rolleyes:;) .

 

In 1912, they thought they had all the technology to prevent ships from sinking too.

 

As long as there are humans in charge of ships, they will make mistakes. Unfortunately, the ocean is very unforgiving of stupidity.

[Single Cruiser]

I would have thought some automated device did detect but only last minute otherwise the bow would have been hit.

 

The Capts story changes Everytime, from they weren't charted to we didn't make the turn early enough (which would imply they did know the rocks were there!) .

 

On planes they have alarms with height, stall etc but if say a pilot was doing a low fly past he'd silence the alarm. I'd have no doubt any such similar "you are too close" alarm would equally have been silenced by the capt as he was manually doing the manoeuvre!