Morrolan wrote:according to the above BBC link the shore authorities said 5 minutes after the distress call that the order should be given to abandon ship. the captain only gave the order 30 minutes after that, when the vessel was (apparently) on its side. it took 3 hours to sink.
either way, i am confused as to why people were apparently kept inside the vessel rather than at the designated emergency stations, which, in my, admittedly limited, experience, are always on deck. the vessel only had half the maximum number of passengers on board, so no reason to think there wouldn't be enough room.
One of the funny things about maritime decisions is that usually the best person to make a call is the one that is there not one that is on the other end of the phone/HF. The captains decision was based on the high currents and the possible loss of life if they were swept out.
I understand that it took 3 hours to sink but 30 minutes is the time before it listed to its side. it should have taken a lot longer than that.
I'm not trying to excuse the captain, I'm just looking at the general rule with boats/ships that start taking water is that statistically it's safer to stay on the boat than leave it. Catastrophic events are pretty rare and hard to determine in advance. Similar to the Titanic. If the tear wasn't across all the bulk heads the best thing would have been to stay on board. Determining the extent of the damage on a large vessel isn't always easy so one looks at the circumstance and the statistics and hopes that they make the right call. Often that call just isn't able to be easily seen at the time.
Oddly my gut says that there is no reason with today's technology for there not to be simple ways to prevent such disasters for the most part and determine just how bad the damage is. I can't explain why it isn't done as it's not that much to implement the appropriate sensors compared to the cost of the vessel.
It's also the reason why I'm making the boat we're on positively buoyant to the extent that even if we take water by a breach in all the bulkheads and hulls it will not only float but stay sailable. Cost for our boat is about $600-$1000. A gps chart plotter costs more. It does however reduce the available usable volume so shipping companies aren't going to like that. They want to pack more people and cargo in rather than make the vessel unsinkable. IMHO that's a fine tactic for cargo only ships as they have small crews and are easily protected by proper life rafts. On passenger ships one needs to factor major loss of life as well since life rafts of the commercial quality (like on oil rigs) won't be cost effective.
Back in the early 1900's ships didn't even carry enough life boats for all the passengers. Today they don't factor catastrophic events as possible so any such event results in loss of life. That needs to change.
Changing the marine industry is fraught with stubborn attitudes. It took about 100 years after a catamaran won the America's cup to allow them to enter the race again. They instead condemned the cat as unsafe and banned it. That pov still exists today even while monohull owners know their vessels will sink fast after being holed and even though they argue that monohulls self right, few are actually made that will do so. Go figure.
I could go on and on about JSD's being the only proven form of device to prevent breaking wave capsize in high seas yet people insist that what they have been doing works even while boats sink that did the same thing as they are pushing. It's madness I say.