EPTSouth Korean Ferry Disaster - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7229 Posts
| ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
| ||
|
Rho_
United States971 Posts
On April 22 2014 08:48 Scarecrow wrote: Rescue effort was also really poor/slow. Took them till Saturday night (almost 5 days) to gain access to the passenger section (by breaking a window...). It really shouldn't take that long in this day and age, regardless of difficulties with current and visibility. It just seems unreal that given that amount of time, a national rescue effort couldn't get inside a vessel in such shallow water. Diving on ships is really dangerous even in good conditions, and you don't want to compound the tragedy by losing divers. I'm not saying they're doing a good job with the rescue/recovery efforts, but to say that the divers should go in regardless of current and visibility is irresponsible and irrational. | ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
On April 22 2014 08:54 Rho_ wrote: Diving on ships is really dangerous even in good conditions, and you don't want to compound the tragedy by losing divers. I'm not saying they're doing a good job with the rescue/recovery efforts, but to say that the divers should go in regardless of current and visibility is irresponsible and irrational. Careful is fine, but 5 days to make any sort of progress? Surely a modern search and rescue can do better than that? | ||
|
Kaizen[7]
United States86 Posts
On April 22 2014 08:48 Scarecrow wrote: Rescue effort was also really poor/slow. Took them till Saturday night (almost 5 days) to gain access to the passenger section (by breaking a window...). It really shouldn't take that long in this day and age, regardless of difficulties with current and visibility. It just seems unreal that given that amount of time, a national rescue effort couldn't get inside a vessel in such shallow water. Are you speaking as some kind of authority on rescue diving? It may SEEM unreal but as someone already pointed out, there is no need to compound a national tragedy further by losing divers. | ||
|
marigoldran
219 Posts
There's the minor point where if you go below 10 m and you rise too quickly to the surface the air bubbles in your blood will expand and blow up your capillaries. There's also the minor point that in order to survive 50 m underwater you need a stable supply of oxygen. And since that oxygen is supplied by the ship on top of you, you better hope the weather above isn't too choppy or else your oxygen can get cut off. Oh, finally, there are unpredictable underwater currents. These currents are the strongest in areas with lots of narrow passageways, such as for example the area around a clump of islands. And did I mention that it's pitch black and cold down there too? | ||
|
babylon
8765 Posts
| ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
| ||
|
marigoldran
219 Posts
Technology is not magic. You cannot just wave your hand and say "because of modern technology, everything is possible. Because I pay you, you should be able to do it." Only people who take technology for granted (i.e. non-engineers) think this way. Anyone with a mathematical or scientific background would carefully think over WHY things work the way they do. Sometimes they're wrong, but at least the THINKING process is there. If the captain could have thought things over clearly, or if the passengers could have thought for themselves critically, this disaster could have been averted. The problem is people take authority and technology for granted. | ||
|
Disregard
China10252 Posts
edit: If people going to reply with robots, sorry robots are just not as effective for such operations. | ||
|
SynC[gm]
United States3127 Posts
Guess that's how it felt during most of the terrorist acts in the past, I was just too young to be aware of back then... Not that I'm implying a terrorist was responsible for this >.> | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
You would think with modern equipment we would be freely exploring the depths. the ocean is so immense and powerful that its hard to wrap a head around it really, it can be a 10-foot fishing boat or a nuclear aircraft carrier or the most up-to-date ultradeep-diving submarine we really are at the ocean's mercy when we're out there. we are not ever truly the masters out there like the way we usually are on land. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On the other hand, if the ship is not actually sinking, an evacuation order can needlessly cost lives. Most deaths in the Costa Concordia incident were related to people who jumped from the ship in panic. And the Costa Concordia was in shallow waters right next to an island. Here we are talking about a ship surrounded by a cold and dangerous ocean. We also do not know the cause of the sinking yet. I am not saying the bridge crew is free from blame, and the captain certainly is to blame. But if they were not well trained for an emergency - apparently they weren't - and if they did not get clear instructions in response to their emergency call then there is something wrong with the South Korean system, too. | ||
|
killerdog
Denmark6522 Posts
On April 22 2014 17:25 Maenander wrote: Generally it's a hard decision to give the order of evacuation for a passenger ship. On one hand, every minute is precious and an early evacuation order saves lives if the ship is actually sinking like in this case. On the other hand, if the ship is not actually sinking, an evacuation order can needlessly cost lives. Most deaths in the Costa Concordia incident were related to people who jumped from the ship in panic. And the Costa Concordia was in shallow waters right next to an island. Here we are talking about a ship surrounded by a cold and dangerous ocean. We also do not know the cause of the sinking yet. I am not saying the bridge crew is free from blame, and the captain certainly is to blame. But if they were not well trained for an emergency - apparently they weren't - and if they did not get clear instructions in response to their emergency call then there is something wrong with the South Korean system, too. The bbc was reporting on transcripts between the ship and the coastguard from when they sent out the SOS. " At 09:24 - 29 minutes after the Sewol issued its first distress call - a controller says: "Please go out and let the passengers wear life jackets and put on more clothing.'' "The unidentified crew member says: "If this ferry evacuates passengers, will you be able to rescue them?" "At least make them wear life rings and make them escape,'' the controller from the Jindo Vessel Traffic Services Centre replies. As he continues to urge the crew to prepare for evacuation, the crew member twice asks if passengers would be "rescued straight away". It was not until 09:37 - a few seconds before the last communication - that it became clear to controllers that evacuation had been ordered. I guess the crew just didn't think it would sink as fast as it did, and were afraid of people dying in the ocean, assuming they'd be safer on the ship then in the water unless there were rescue ships already there. source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27096629 | ||
|
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
Premature evac can also fuck people up just as badly. It's actually a really fine call from the sounds of it. http://www.shipwrite.bc.ca/Chilling_truth.htm | ||
|
sharkie
Austria18524 Posts
On April 22 2014 11:56 Scarecrow wrote: I guess I'm just naive to think that with modern rescue equipment we're still incapable of dealing with dark, cold water and strong currents. Of course it's extremely difficult but isn't this the sort of rescue that they are paid and prepare for? According to reports, they collected a bunch of bodies that floated free, tapped on the hull and broke a window after 5 days. Yeah you are pretty naive if you think humans have the means to oppose mother nature. Only in scifi humans can beat nature, we are and always will be subject to her wills | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On April 22 2014 11:56 Scarecrow wrote: I guess I'm just naive to think that with modern rescue equipment we're still incapable of dealing with dark, cold water and strong currents. Of course it's extremely difficult but isn't this the sort of rescue that they are paid and prepare for? According to reports, they collected a bunch of bodies that floated free, tapped on the hull and broke a window after 5 days. While you can anchor the rescue boats nearby in bad weather, you can't approach with a boat(Could cause even more of a disaster if it nudges the ship) and you can't send divers into the water for sure. The temperatures are actually one of the lesser issues, with proper cold water diving equipment you can stay in there for several hours, especially with a tether. The bigger issue is current. Underwater, even very strong swimmers would be hard pressed to fight a current of more than a couple km/h for any length of time before exhausting themselves. The water also looks extremely murky, visibility is probably only several meters. ROV's can be used in bad weather, and depending on the model even fight the currents, but they can't do much more than surveillance/analysis much of the time. Even if anybody was still alive in an airpocket somewhere, that rescue is reliant on divers because it is far too delicate for ROV's to undertake. | ||
|
Lunareste
United States3596 Posts
| ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
On April 22 2014 19:07 sharkie wrote: Yeah you are pretty naive if you think humans have the means to oppose mother nature. Only in scifi humans can beat nature, we are and always will be subject to her wills Sarcasm? otherwise wtf are you even talking about, we defy 'mother nature' all the time... Some environments are more difficult than others but referring to them as a single entity coupled with blanket statements is retarded (I hope that was your point). Appreciate the other posts with valid info | ||
|
Tula
Austria1544 Posts
On April 22 2014 18:28 killerdog wrote: The bbc was reporting on transcripts between the ship and the coastguard from when they sent out the SOS. "" I guess the crew just didn't think it would sink as fast as it did, and were afraid of people dying in the ocean, assuming they'd be safer on the ship then in the water unless there were rescue ships already there. source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27096629 possibly, but the order to "remain in your cabin" goes against everything I was taught about proper procedure. Maybe they skipped the proper "evacuation drill" as it is not mandatory for ferries (something many sailors disagree with), but at least the crew should have known how to prepare for an eventual evacuation: 1) Make everyone dress in his warmest clothes and put his lifejacket on. 2) Assemble them on the open deck/s with crew members close by to every group to give orders. Once those things have been done (should take between 5 and 10 minutes depending on how well drilled the crew is, 3 minutes at the very least to move most passengers) they can evacuate a ship properly (everyone into lifeboats) within 2 minutes. Yes the ship sunk fast (as all ferries do, too much weight, not enough pumps) but I've personally seen a bigger ferry evacuated in 9 minutes so I really don't understand the thought process behind the "stay inside" order. Once a ship starts to flood with water it becomes a deathtrap inside, every sailor knows that... I'm still shocked that a second captain makes such crucial mistakes, I thought you couldn't give more idiotic orders after the Costa Concordia mess, but this one is even worse... | ||
| ||
