|
Not sure if this may have already been mentioned in the thread, but this ship was basically a disaster waiting to be happen, according to my Korean friends relaying news from Korean news services etc.
Apparently the usual captain of the ship was off at the time of the catastrophe because of a holiday or somesuch, and the guy captaining the ship when this happened normally doesn't even work on ferries of this size or something. Furthermore, majority of the crew were part-timers with basically the minimum training possible. Last but not least, the actual captain of the ship supposedly approached the owner of the ferry saying there is an issue with the balance of the ship or something of the sort (the vessel actually tilted slightly to one side months before this happened) but the owner chose not to carry out a proper investigation / maintenance work suggested by the captain to save money.
Pretty shit of the owner if that's actually true.
|
Yes. I was about to post this like last week, but I think someone from SK have to do it. Anyway.. This is really sad, seeing that the majority of the ship was still on top of the water and the rescuers already there, I can't imagine how did they let that happen .
|
Yes, the ship had additional cabins built on the upper decks without addressing any balance concerns. As for the third mate, doesn't the captain just punch in some numbers for the auto pilot and have it execute the turn. All the guy would do is watch the auto pilot.
I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up similarly to the mall collapse in Korea a few years ago where people decided to refit something without considering the engineering limits. It is another reason to not completely demonize the crew out of the gate. If every time a shipping company does something unsafe to a ship but the captain gets most of the blame, how do you prevent the companies from doing something stupid again?
That's not to say the crew wasn't partially or fully responsible, its just another thing to consider.
http://www.asianewsnet.net/SEWOL-DISASTER-Ferry-was-overloaded--crew-may-have-59441.html
The 20-year-old vessel was reportedly renovated in 2012 and two cabins were added, making it top-heavy
The ill-fated Korean ferry Sewol was overloaded and its crew appears to have broken several other safety guidelines, possibly resulting in its sinking last Wednesday, sources have said.
Divers made multiple trips to the ferry to recover bodies yesterday, in what is one of South Korea's worst disasters in recent memory.
Since late Saturday, rescue workers recovered 29 bodies from inside the ferry and nearby waters off the coast of Jindo Island, South Jeolla Province.
As of 6pm yesterday, the death toll stood at 58, while 244 remained missing.
The 20-year-old vessel was reportedly renovated in 2012, after it was purchased from a Japanese ferry company. Two cabins were added to the back, possibly making it top-heavy, experts claimed.
Though it was not illegal to extend a ship vertically, it could exert greater weight and pressure on the vessel, experts said.
In the Sewol's case, its capacity was increased 14 per cent and is believed to have become 239 tonnes heavier.
"Because the ship was heavier, there is the chance that the crew loaded less ballast water, which is needed to balance the ship," said a Korean Register of Shipping official.
"This may have made the ship unable to recover from the initial tilting."
Park Soo-han, chief executive of shipping parts compnay KCC Corporation, said: "If the top becomes heavier, you need to add more weight to the bottom to make it steady but I don't think that was the case with the Sewol."
Others have suggested that the Sewol load of vehicles and cargo was heavier than what was reported, which could have been a major factor in it sinking.
According to the radio correspondent log, the Sewol reported 450 passengers, 150 vehicles and 657 tonnes of cargo to the Korea Shipping Association.
After the accident, the company revealed the actual numbers were 477 passengers, 124 passenger cars, 22 one-tonne trucks, 34 cargo trucks of more than 2.5-tonne capacity, and 1,157 tonnes of cargo.
The Sewol had a legal capacity of 921 passengers, 180 vehicles and 154 regular cargo containers.
However, heavy trailer drivers carrying more than 30 tonnes of materials each could make freight even heavier.
"Heavy vehicles and their loads weren't examined before they were loaded on the Sewol," a truck driver told reporters.
"Because the Sewol is lax when it comes to overloading, many cargo owners prefer taking the Sewol than to drive all the way to Mokpo in South Jeolla Province and take a ship there."
Sources said that if the heavy cargo were not properly tied down it could have caused the ship to tip over after it titled.
Some people allegedly heard containers fall and roll over.
"If this is true, then the cargo might have upset the weight distribution. It could have accelerated the tipping over process," said Professor Lee Sang-yoon of Pukyung National University.
|
What I don't understand in this whole disaster is why didn't rescue services try to save people trapped inside as soon as they arrived?
|
On April 23 2014 01:55 -Archangel- wrote:
What I don't understand in this whole disaster is why didn't rescue services try to save people trapped inside as soon as they arrived?
From media reports, the first rescuers to arrive were basically fishing boats and they did try. Accounts are of crew breaking windows on the sinking ship to pull people trapped below.
|
It sounded like that the conditions of the water was too dangerous for divers initially.
|
On April 23 2014 02:14 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2014 01:55 -Archangel- wrote:
What I don't understand in this whole disaster is why didn't rescue services try to save people trapped inside as soon as they arrived? From media reports, the first rescuers to arrive were basically fishing boats and they did try. Accounts are of crew breaking windows on the sinking ship to pull people trapped below.
And when did first professional rescue team arrive?
Why didn't any try to cut through the hull?
I am asking this because media in my country only reported as if divers finding dead bodies inside the ship days after it all happened which is fucking terrible if it is true. If it is true, it sounds like this accident was not taken seriously.
|
Because if you cut through the hull more water rushes in and the ship sinks more. Also, exactly how do you cut through a hull? A hull is designed so that it's difficult to be cut through, for obvious reasons.
|
On April 23 2014 05:29 marigoldran wrote:
Because if you cut through the hull more water rushes in and the ship sinks more. Also, exactly how do you cut through a hull? A hull is designed so that it's difficult to be cut through, for obvious reasons.
I believe he means if a ship capsizes then having to cut through what use to be the submerged surface is now above the water line to pull any potential survivors out.
|
On April 23 2014 05:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2014 05:29 marigoldran wrote:
Because if you cut through the hull more water rushes in and the ship sinks more. Also, exactly how do you cut through a hull? A hull is designed so that it's difficult to be cut through, for obvious reasons. I believe he means if a ship capsizes then having to cut through what use to be the submerged surface is now above the water line to pull any potential survivors out.
Yes, that is what I meant. But as I said, I am wondering if any meaningful rescue attempt was done on first day of accident.
|
It just pains me whenever I wake up and check the internet, only to see that the number of deceased has gone up once again. Imagining seventeen year old teenagers, trapped by the heavy, dull metal of the sunken ferry, freezing from icy water, and surrounded by nothing but darkness just makes me shed a tear...
|
Too many lives were lost in this tragedy and it's beginning to look like the reason is because the ferry company wanted to bypass safety regulations in order to save/earn more money. The captain is not the only one to blame here (although his actions were terrible).
|
On April 23 2014 06:53 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2014 05:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 23 2014 05:29 marigoldran wrote:
Because if you cut through the hull more water rushes in and the ship sinks more. Also, exactly how do you cut through a hull? A hull is designed so that it's difficult to be cut through, for obvious reasons. I believe he means if a ship capsizes then having to cut through what use to be the submerged surface is now above the water line to pull any potential survivors out. Yes, that is what I meant. But as I said, I am wondering if any meaningful rescue attempt was done on first day of accident.
If you cut a hole in the bottom them it would sink rather than do the bob upside down thing its doing right now. They would have probably done it if it rolled in shallow water. Its what they did with some of the battleships sunk at pearl harbor.
|
The ship is upside down, which means the center of gravity is already messed up. If you take a big machine (and exactly how would you get the big machine to the ship?) and cut through the ship, you'll mess up the center of gravity of the ship even more, which could make the situation worse.
Damaging an already damaged ship is rarely a good idea.
|
I'm not a great ship rescue mind, but cutting a hole in the hull would seem to potentially open up a lot of side effects that could make the situation even worse. Center of gravity as states above, you're essentially giving room for any air keeping the ship buoyant a place to escape which could let water rush in and sink it faster, you've got to have a crane to lift the cut piece away or it might fall on people you're trying to save inside, it falling might further disrupt the center of gravity or structural integrity of the ship. Not to mention the possibility of starting a fire with falling molten steel inside of the ship and the last thing you want on a ship is a fire. The whole situation is a shit sandwich. I don't think that pointing a finger at the people actively trying to save folks is the right thing. I don't see how they should be taking a single iota of blame in any capacity.
The situation sucks, I think there's plenty of blame to go around on the front end of the situation with the captain, potentially the crew, and the owner of the ship. My heart goes out to the people who perished and their families, that's an awful way to go.
|
It's just sad, thinking about it. As the boat capsized, surely there were hundreds of people still alive, and yet trapped in compartments that were slowly running out of air and filling up with water. Meanwhile, lots of rescue crews on the outside, but nothing they can do, really, to help the people inside, who, over the course of the next few hours or even days, will die a slow death....
That's so awful. I guess that degree of helplessness, for help to be so close and yet so far away, is why people are questioning why more couldn't be done. We think we're so technologically advanced, and then something like this just goes to show the limits to what we can do.
|
On April 23 2014 12:02 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I'm not a great ship rescue mind, but cutting a hole in the hull would seem to potentially open up a lot of side effects that could make the situation even worse. Center of gravity as states above, you're essentially giving room for any air keeping the ship buoyant a place to escape which could let water rush in and sink it faster, you've got to have a crane to lift the cut piece away or it might fall on people you're trying to save inside, it falling might further disrupt the center of gravity or structural integrity of the ship. Not to mention the possibility of starting a fire with falling molten steel inside of the ship and the last thing you want on a ship is a fire. The whole situation is a shit sandwich. I don't think that pointing a finger at the people actively trying to save folks is the right thing. I don't see how they should be taking a single iota of blame in any capacity.
The situation sucks, I think there's plenty of blame to go around on the front end of the situation with the captain, potentially the crew, and the owner of the ship. My heart goes out to the people who perished and their families, that's an awful way to go.
It depends if there were useful actions to take that were not taken in time. Personally I don't know much about rescue operations, that is why I am asking here. It just seems strange to me that divers would go inside days later when anyone inside that somehow survived would have suffocated by then
|
On April 23 2014 13:33 Warlock40 wrote:
It's just sad, thinking about it. As the boat capsized, surely there were hundreds of people still alive, and yet trapped in compartments that were slowly running out of air and filling up with water. Meanwhile, lots of rescue crews on the outside, but nothing they can do, really, to help the people inside, who, over the course of the next few hours or even days, will die a slow death....
That's so awful. I guess that degree of helplessness, for help to be so close and yet so far away, is why people are questioning why more couldn't be done. We think we're so technologically advanced, and then something like this just goes to show the limits to what we can do.
That's pretty much it, you watch movies and TV shows where problems are overcome under severe time constraints. Then rescue crews have 5+ days to work something out but can't do shit. Horrible thinking about kids waiting for rescue for days and it just wasn't coming.
|
What I learned from this is that if people in charge tell you to trust them and do what they say during a large scale accident, you should do opposite.
If these passengers didn't go back to their cabins like they were told, much more of them would have survived.
|
On April 23 2014 19:19 -Archangel- wrote:
What I learned from this is that if people in charge tell you to trust them and do what they say during a large scale accident, you should do opposite.
If these passengers didn't go back to their cabins like they were told, much more of them would have survived.
I hope you realize the vast majority of cases when emergency services try to coordinate disaster rescue and relief, individuals not following plans told to them can jeopardize the safety of everybody around them, and that in the vast majority of cases (accidents happen on a hourly basis around the world) following said instructions saves lives?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
