News Ferry sinks near South Korean coast

[Urwumpe]

A ferry sank this morning near the South Korean coast, with 477 passengers and crew on board. 2 are reported dead now, 164 are still missing. Over 300 of the passengers had been students from the Danwon High School in Ansan, who had been on an excursion that day.

Looks like its a major maritime incident again, again with a ferry.

The ship capsized and sank in two hours, but the photographs show only one life raft deployed, the people had been rescued by 34 ships and 18 helicopters. It happened only 20 km away from the island Byungpoong (near Jindo). The ship was travelling from Incheon to the island Jeju.

http://www.straitstimes.com/news/as...nking-2-dead-107-missing-368-rescued-20140416

The cause is still unknown, it is suspected that the ship ran aground, because passengers reported a knocking sound before the ship stopped.

What concerns me a bit is that life rafts have not been deployed - in one photograph you can see two of their barrels in the water, without getting inflated.

 

[MattBaker]

*comment about Captain Schettino or Cheonan*

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Current news reports are stating that 293 people are still missing.

 

[speedademon]

I saw that news

[/COLOR]

Current news reports are stating that 293 people are still missing.

And 3peoples dead

 

[jedidia]

The ship capsized and sank in two hours

That's fast... must have been one mean rock, or pretty lousy construction.

Then again, ferries are notorious for bad savety on the count of being short-range vessels...

 

[Urwumpe]

That's fast... must have been one mean rock, or pretty lousy construction.

That's not fast, that's pretty long in relation to other accidents with ferries.

The MS Herald of Free Enterprise sank in 4 minutes (Bow doors had not been closed)

The MS Estonia sank in maximal 50 minutes from the first signs of the failing bow door.

The Costa Concordia needed 2 hours as well, the Titanic 2:40 hours...

The longest sinking that I can remember must have been the Lexington, which sank 6 hours after the attack.

 

[jedidia]

The relevant examples you mention all were pretty major accidents (Let's not let the Herald figure into the statistics...). The Estonia had a structural failure in a critical part (for whatever exact reason), and the Titanic did hit a very mean rock (well, iceberg) at almost full speed (and at temperatures that made its steel hull brittle, and lousy construction), and similarly did the Costa Concordia (that's the one that went for sightseeing, is it?).

2 hours is a fast time for a boat to go down, indicating quite severe damage. That's actually all I was hinting at. It's not exceptionally fast, but it must have been quite a bump, and the current reports from earwittnesses don't quite seem to do it justice...

 

[Urwumpe]

Titanic did hit a very mean rock (well, iceberg) at almost full speed (and at temperatures that made its steel hull brittle, and lousy construction)

That had been already disproved - the construction was VERY good. But the ice berg was simply better.

Remember the fate of the Olympic, which was constructed by the same methods and materials as the Titanic.

2 hours is a fast time for a boat to go down,...

A ship wouldn't sink without some substantial damage.

 

[N_Molson]

A ship wouldn't sink without some substantial damage.

Depends... if overloaded, old/poorly-designed ferry-boats are prone to capsize, especially if the cargo mass are not well distributed (which is hard to control with passengers). This notably happened on Africa, on the Mali or Senegal shore. The boat was a piece of junk loaded to sink.

A tragedy in any case.

 

[thanksforair]

its big news in korea. sadly most of passengers of ferry was high school student and they underwater now.
so far 8 dead. and 6 of them student... tragedy.
and looks like captain of ship escape very fast, after telling stay foot in ship to passengers. lots of hate on captian.

 

[Melvin]

I'm very sorry to hear of this and am holding out hope for more survivors.



I have to wonder...

A) If the vessel was over capacity.

B) Was it sailing with enough crew to affect a full evacuation given the life saving equipment at hand?

A bit of unsubstantiated rumor here...
C) How does a professional Ship Captain not only run aground, but then tell his passengers to "hold still" while he makes his escape.

 

[thanksforair]

C) How does a professional Ship Captain not only run aground, but then tell his passengers to "hold still" while he makes his escape.

SOME professional Ship Captain he is. or crew.

about C. thats why i say lots of hate on captian. survivor confirms there was broadcast on speaker 'not to move cuz it safer'. and there is video by survivor confirm it.

well at first IT WAS Safe to hold still in ship... problem begins at this point. after ship begins to sink(or sinking is become obvious). he wont tell passengers to escape. and he and his co- workers escape.:facepalm:

 

[ex-orbinaut]

Dreadful news, but as already mentioned, ferries have a history of bad seakeeping and captaincy.

The longest sinking that I can remember must have been the Lexington, which sank 6 hours after the attack.

She was scuttled, which may also qualify Lutzow after the battle of Jutland, but...

I am not at all sure if it is, but I think the ship that may have taken the longest to sink from damage upon which no attempt was made to repair it may have been, indeed, one of the finest cruisers ever; Prinz Eugen.

A few months, IIRC and AFAIK.

 

[boogabooga]

Text message reveals more survivors trapped in air pocket:

http://news.yahoo.com/south-korea-passenger-ship-350-board-sends-distress-004236356--business.html

The rescue crew better hurry up!

 

[Urwumpe]

A) If the vessel was over capacity.

B) Was it sailing with enough crew to affect a full evacuation given the life saving equipment at hand?

A bit of unsubstantiated rumor here...
C) How does a professional Ship Captain not only run aground, but then tell his passengers to "hold still" while he makes his escape.

A) No.

B) Yes.

C) He seems to have left the normal route. That happens pretty often and can sometimes even be intentional for a good reason.

Holding still after an accident is not a bad order. Imagine what would happen if all people rush on deck in chaos after some strange noises and stopped engines, especially if there is really no urgency. It is really more dangerous to panic.

But in that case, it was the wrong order. When the ships list increases quickly, it becomes impossible to get to the top deck by stairwells - or even follow the normal routes to it, since walls become floor, etc.

Also, the witness reports sound like the engine room got flooded quickly and power cut out in minutes, so the order to stay where you are and wait can really be the last order, that went through the PA.

Still, the captain should always be the last to leave the ship.

---------- Post added at 01:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 AM ----------

There is now a statement of the crew about the accident, notably the 58 years old helmsman of the ship.

The late order to evacuate was given because the crew tried to stabilize the ship first and reduce the list (which isn't that unimportant because it is almost impossible to evacuate a ship that's about to capsize)

When the list got out of control, the crew ordered to evacuate the ship, but the crew was not sure if this order reached all passengers. The helmsman and the captain left the ship in a group of 12 survivors, the captain is 68 years old and is cited as "I am really sorry, I feel ashamed." The captain is now subject to the usual criminal investigation.

Additionally to the theory of running aground, there is a new theory now around, of the ship having made a very hard turn, right before the noise started and the ship started to list.

By that new information, it is very hard to keep the theory of a second Schettino moment up. While the crew really did draw the wrong conclusions about the damage to the ship, I don't believe that the crew acted wrong. Would they have evacuated without stabilizing list, the evacuation could have been more harmful and likely many people would have died if the ship capsized during it - just like it did, despite the efforts of the crew.

More important would be the question, why it left the normal route (if they really did so, that is not yet confirmed). Was it a navigation error? Maybe by mistaking a visual landmark? Or had they been ordered by the coast guard to travel another route? Did they evade another ship?

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

It's interesting to note that the ferry involve in the accident was only sold to the Koreans recently - between first operations in June 1994 and September 2012 the ship belonged to a Japanese company running on the Kagoshima - Naha (Okinawa) line. It was then sold to the Koreans and entered operations in March 2013 - i.e. just a year ago. And there were no faults at all during its 18 years of service in Japan. (and I would think that the route to Okinawa would have been more rough than to Jeju island, so we are not talking about problems encountered with different sea conditions, which doomed the MV Estonia)

Maybe the crew were unfamiliar with the ferry's operations?

 

[Evil_Onyx]

I'm only saying this because its Korea, but what is the possibility that the North Korea where involved.

 

[boogabooga]

No evidence whatsoever.

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm only saying this because its Korea, but what is the possibility that the North Korea where involved.

Very low. First of all, there is little right now, that requires North Korea to be involved. Next, there is also no evidence of any North Korea person or vehicle being nearby.

 

[Evil_Onyx]

No evidence whatsoever.

It is far too early to say that, once rescue ops are complete and the investigation begins thats when it can be proved or disproved.

I was only trowing the question out there for it to be beaten down with the kind of reply from Urwumpe.