Conference vicki::boats

re               <<< Note 1015.0 by ROBOAT::HEBERT "Captain Bligh" >>>
>                             -< We're the Fagawee >-

> Any guesses as to why the QE2 found bottom near Cuttyhunk? I noted that
> the location is not all that far from where a large liner also struck
> bottom last year.

	Well,  "it happens to the best of us..."  (-:

> Could they be using LORAN exclusively, and some anomaly (such as the
> proximity to the Nantucket slave) is giving them false reports as to their
> position?

	I would have hoped GPS, if anything - but wasn't there a pilot aboard ?
Not that everyone who collects a fee actually DOES anything for it... >-: 

	Reg

    Where she supposely struck their was only 39' of water and she draws
    32' of water so even a 6' troth could have caused her to hit a rocky
    bottom but as the news said this mourning they have found a couple of
    uncharted rocks in the area and simple math tells you it wouldn't have
    to be that tall to do the job.But why the hell they bring a ship that
    size that way is realy dumb as she takes 4-6 miles just to respond to
    her helm .But I guess they will try anything for a buck.

    re: .-1
    
    My reaction exactly.  Why is a billion dollar boat full of people
    going at WOT in water 15% deeper than her draft?    
    
    This is the same as me powering my elcheapo boat with a draft of
    3' full blast through water 3' 5" deep.....
    

    RE: .1
    
    At the risk of going down the LORAN vs GPS rathole, GPS is not, and
    will not be supported by the US Coast Guard or other navigational
    agencies until the entire satellite network in in place and fully
    operational.
    
    However, I agree with replies questioning what she was doing
    in the shallows in the first place.  Add her to the growing list:
    Argo Merchant, Chester E. Polling, Global Hope et. al., and just be
    thankful that no lives were lost and no major oil spill resulted.

Well, I've frequently gone through areas on plane that I couldn't have
navigated off plane unless the engine was out of the water. I can
remember one day (in my younger, wilder days) when I purposely got my
Whaler up on plane so I could slither across an area of wet seaweed (at
Sakonnet Point) at low tide. And, down in South Jersey (Somers Point to
Pleasantville) it was normal to run on plane through some thoroughfares
that had 8" to 10" of water at best. But that was with a boat that cost
me $600 and a $150 engine. 

Uncharted rocks in the Buzzard's Bay area? With the rich history of the
area I'd have to think that someone between Bartholomew Gosnald and WW II
would have found all the rocks. (I grew up in Westport.)

Art 

    They are always finding new ledges in the vineyard sound because the
    bottom is always changing due to the tides and storms what maybe sand
    one week will be rocks the next but the chart does warn of rocks in the
    area where she hit .My point is with a ship that takes 4-6 miles to
    respond to her helm why was she trying the sound anyway she should have
    been out in the shipping lanes not 2 miles from land in a narrow
    channel. thats only 1/2 mile wide at best and a 39-50' deep.

	Yeah, well, right on, etc...... and we've footed our good ole 
buddy Roger through the rocks behind Middlesex Power and Marine at low 
tide, etc.    The questions continue to beg,  "Where was the pilot ?"  
"What was his/her job ?"  "Was it neglected ?"

	R

    
    
    	I was listening to one of the Boston A.M. radio stations this 
    	morning and during the news they reported that the captain had
    	"overuled" the pilot and forced a change of course because he
    	fealt that the ship was "too close" to some shoals...  He also
    	indicated that both he AND the pilot were in control of the ship.
    
    	It would be interesting to know if that made things better or
    	worse.
    
    
    	Jim
    

    While 7' seems like not much to spare, there are some important
    contextual factors.  First, the tide was about 2' above low, so it
    really was 41' deep in the charted area.  Second, large ships have used
    that channel many times, including the QE2 (does passing without
    hitting anything ever make the news?).  Third, while uncharted rocks
    are out there, they are rather unusual.  The bottom-charting systems
    NOAA uses are rather sophisticated, and if you remember that the Navy
    likes to run subs in that area a fair amount, one might quess they've
    got a pretty detailed portrait of the bottom.  Hazards such as large
    rocks and shallow spots aren't held back as secret information.
    
    Navigationally, the QE2 probably had GPS, Satnav, Loran and radar all
    running, as well as an inertial compass.  I doubt she was even 20' from
    the plotted position, and if the chart says it's deep enough without
    showing hazards, wouldn't you take that route if you had confidence in
    your positional navigation?  (I certainly do, every time I go out!) 
    The captain's concern in over-ruling the pilot's choice of a more
    northerly track was to keep further from (south) of the charted shoals
    off Cuttyhunk.  His path was intended to be nearer the midpoint between
    Cuttyhunk and M.V.
    
    It seems odd that the feds found a rock right about where she hit
    something, and yet say it fails to exhibit any signs of having been hit
    (paint, scraping, abrasion, etc).  One question I raise is whether some
    old wreck, a good-sized vessel, has been rolling around the bottom, and
    recently rolled into a position within 30' of MLW?  It does all seem
    strange.
    
    The pilot's *ss is probably saved by having had the captain over-rule
    his suggested route, even if for prudent reasons.  (Normally, the
    pilot is responsible in such situations, as when a tanker hit the Tampa
    Bay Bridge years ago.)  The captain may be exonerated since he was
    doing a competent job based on all *available* information, including
    the accepted benchmark gov't charts.  My guess is Cunard's insurance 
    company will eat the repair expense, Cunard the lost business expense,
    and everyone will be glad it wasn't worse.  She could have sunk, after
    all.
    
    John.
                                                   
    

    If she had sunk she would have dropped 9' to the bottom.
    
    The casual observer passing by would never have noticed, nor would
    have anyone aboard higher than 39' off the keel.

    Good summary in .9.  I agree with it with a few comments of my own.
    The clearance between the QE2's bottom and the indicated depth does
    seem close (there ain't much room to spare) but when you think about
    it any large ship coming into harbor typically has close clearances
    like that.  I do wonder at her speed which was some 22-23 knots (not
    quite WOT), it does seem fast in a close channel like that to me.
    All it would take is one big 10 foot high boulder to nail her, although
    the divers said they so no marks on the boulder which seems to prove
    the QE 2 didn't hit THAT boulder. 
    
    The charts are not perfect as evidenced by the frequent notes to
    mariners.  Yup sounds as if the pilots utt was saved by the Capt.
    overriding him. 
    
    The collision is curious given the information supplied.  I continue
    to be amazed at the LACK of information given over the news.  I suppose
    that legal reasons limit what info Cunard will give out.  What
    frustrates me is that I probably will never HEAR ANOTHER THING ABOUT
    THE CONCLUSIONS ON THIS WHEN THEY COME OUT IN 6 MONTHS unless I read
    EVERY word in the papers for the next year and manage to find some
    article buried on page 44 in Feb 93 when the marine board makes
    'public' its findings.  
    
    I suppose the Capt. of the QE 2 will now be invited to 'retire' or
    be 'routinely' rotated to the SS Scuzbucket out of Rio.  Maybe he
    deserves it, but I'll bet its an uncharted hazard which was no ones
    fault... but heads will have to roll.
    
    Jeff

    
    	If you are really curious the NTSB will probably end up writing a
    report with their findings.  These reports are a matter of public
    record and you can order a copy for a nominal fee.  Back when I worked
    as a naval architect our library kept a copy of every maritime related
    accident report issued by the NTSB.  I have no idea how you go about
    getting them but with a couple of phone calls you should be able to
    find out.
    
    Forrest

    Has anyone considered additional facts such as:
    1. This week there is a full moon which would produce a minus tide
    situation at the time of the incident.( not full minus)
    2. how much balast did the QE2 have at the Time?
    I'm not a rocket scientist, but that may eat into the margin.
    
    George

    As one who grew up on the vineyard sound I know that the shoals can
    change in 24 hrs during a storm so don't tell me about hi tech system
    are great but no chart that only updated every 10 years can even be
    considered as the last word it is only a reference not gospal as alot
    of greenhorns have found out to their lost.Now as far as these great
    nav. system loran in that area is luckey if its within 1/2 mile due to
    the nantucket slave which causes errors.The gps system is good but as
    stated by the uscg not complete until all the satilites are up and
    theirfore they do not support it as of yet.I still say althought they
    still send navy as well as commercial vessels threw that doesn't make
    it the safe and correct thing to do when yyou consider the danger to
    lives and to the enviroment.I also was on the ship of noaa in 1966 that
    did the last update of the vinyard charts and they are only accurrate
    to +- 3' on depth and 1/2 mile on location these charts are for
    reference only and when used for navigation you are suppoese to know
    this.

                  QE2 CANCELS CRUUISES THROUGH SEPTEMBER
                  
                    Liner's Damage Worse Than Expected
                    
The Queen Elizabeth 2's cruises have been canceled through the end of
September because damage from its grounding last week is worse than
previously thought, the luxury liner's owner says.

Divers, meanwhile, found an uncharted rock Friday  in the area of the
accident that apperared to have red paint on it -- the same color as the
paint on the bottom of the QE2's hull.

Lt. Cmdr. John Wilder of the National Oceanographic and Atmosphereic
Administration said the rock was 34�' deep.

The QE2 draws 32 feet, but its coastal pilor, John Hadley, told a Coast
Guard hearing in Boston on Friday the hull could dip lower in the water
becauase of certain ocean effects.

Wilder said other uncharted rocks also have been found in the areas off
the southwest tip of Cape Cod. He said this rock, unlike the others, was
scraped clean of vegetation an dhad what appeared to be red paint on it.

He said a laboratory would compare the paint to the liner's.

No one was injured when the luxury liner ran aground Aug. 7 after
leaving Martha's Vineyard, but the 1,815 passengers were evacuated. The
ship is in a Boston dry dock for repairs.

Cunard spokesman Eleanor Leslie said the company canceled eight
trans-Atlantic crossings and two cruises, hoping to sail again Sept. 29.
Earlier this week, Cunard officials had said they hoped to have the liner
back in service Tuesday.

The gash in the hull initially was estimated at 74 feet, but National
Transportation Safety Board investigator said Friday a series of dents,
cracks and gashes stretched for almost 400 feet.

Hadley, who has navigated the waters near Newport, R.I. for nearly 20
years, testified that the QE2's captain, Robin Woodall, chose a course
different than the one he recommended, but said the change shouldn't have
made a difference.

   From: [email protected] (KEN ROSS)
   Newsgroups: clari.news.trouble,clari.tw.environment,clari.news.top
   Subject: Captain recalls night QE2 grounded
   Date: 14 Aug 92 12:26:42 GMT
 
 
	BOSTON (UPI) -- The captain of the Queen Elizabeth 2 said he overruled
the local pilot and ordered a 10-degree course change six minutes before
the giant luxury liner ran aground off the Massachusetts coast, causing
extensive damage to its hull.
	Robin A. Woodall told a board of inquiry Thursday that although he
had no apprehension about the charts or the route laid down by the
pilot, he ordered the course change because he felt ``we were headed a
bit close to some shoals.''
	The change was a diversion from the course laid out by pilot John
Hadley, who was to present his version of the grounding to the board on
Friday.
	The board made up of Coast Guard and National Transportation Safety
Board investigators was expected to continue the hearings for several
days.
	Woodall, a 42-year veteran, said the change he ordered was designed
to take the ship further south of the shoals. The course set by the
pilot was more northerly than requested by the navigator, he said.
	He testified there was little discussion about the change with the
pilot. Despite the course change, the vessel still struck an uncharted
obstacle.
	In his testimony, Woodall defended Hadley's performance.
	Woodall, a 10-year captain with Cunard Lines, owner of the QE2, was
asked by NTSB investigator Leon Z. Katcharian whether he had any 
``problems'' with the way the Newport, R.I., pilot handled the liner.
	``None whatsoever,'' Woodall answered.
	Woodall went on to say that Hadley had been aboard the QE2 at least
once before and, the captain felt, had a ``good understanding'' of how
to handle it.
	The testimony was a departure of sorts from statements by Cunard
representatives Saturday. They stressed that it was a local pilot who
was steering the QE2 when it ran into trouble last Friday night.
	On Wednesday, Hadley and his lawyer countered by saying it was
Woodall who was ultimately responsible for the ship.
	Woodall said the QE2 was traveling out of Vineyard Sound, the body of
water that separates Martha's Vineyard and the string of Elizabeth
Islands, when he felt and heard a ``very heavy rumbling,'' and then a
second ``rumbling.''
	``Grounding was the last thing that crossed my mind,'' he said. ``I
knew there was sufficient water in that area for the ship. My first
thoughts were we must have hit a surface object, possibly, or a
machinery failure of some description. Thoughts flash through one's mind
very quickly at that point.''
	Woodall ordered the engines stopped and recalled a ``moment of
wondering what the hell has happened.''
	The accident tore a series of long gashes in the hull of the 936-
foot, 69,000-ton vessel. No one was hurt and the 1,815 passengers aboard
the QE2 were ferried from the ship Saturday.
	The vessel is under repair at a nearby dry dock. Inspectors said the
hull appeared to be more serious than initially believed, but gave no
estimate of how long it would take to repair. Cunard hopes to have the
vessel back in the water by Tuesday for a trans-Atlantic crossing from
New York.
	The accident claimed its first injury Wednesday night, it was
reported Thursday. Although there were no injuries when the vessel
grounded, a Cambridge man trying for a better look at the ship in dry
dock suffered two broken legs when he fell from a pier. Officials said
Arthur Ford, 42, climbed up on the pier despite ``no trespassing''
signs, and fell.
	Ford was taken to Boston City Hospital where he was described in
stable condition.

    From: [email protected] (KEN ROSS)
    Newsgroups: clari.news.trouble,clari.news.military,clari.tw.environment,
	clari.local.new_york,clari.news.top
    Subject: QE2 course change off Mass. coast deemed 'prudent'
    Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 15:28:09 PDT
 
	BOSTON (UPI) -- The local pilot aboard the Queen Elizabeth 2 when it
tore its hull off the Massachusetts coast last weekend testified Friday
that he felt an ill-fated decision to change course was ``prudent.''
	Meanwhile, a federal official revealed that an uncharted rock with
what appeared to be red paint on it has been found in the area where the
accident occurred. The boulder will be analyzed to see if it was the
unseen hazard that crippled the world-famous luxury vessel, he said.
	And the owner of the QE2, Cunard Lines, said damage to the vessel is
worse than first thought and the liner is expected to be out of service
until Sept. 29. Cunard initially hoped to have it sailing again on Aug.
18.
	Pilot John Hadley of Newport, R.I., told a Coast Guard investigatory
hearing that he had set the 936-foot ship on a course out of Vineyard
Sound off Martha's Vineyard the night of Aug. 7 when the ship's
navigator recommended it be changed slightly to the south.
	The captain of the ship, Robin Woodall, testified Thursday that he
ordered the course change because he was concerned about shoals. Six
minutes after the change, the QE2 hit an underwater hazard that abruptly
ended a five-day cruise for 1,800 passengers.
	``In my estimation it was a prudent request, when dealing with ships
that size and people who are perhaps not quite used to running along
shoal areas,'' Hadley said. ``I'm only there in an advisory capacity,
and if they wanted to pass south of (a ledge ahead of them) I saw no
reason why they couldn't do it.''
	Paul Ebedson, an investigator with the National Transportation Safety
Board, later asked Hadley whether he felt the course alteration was the
reason for the grounding, and whether the grounding would not have
happened if the QE2 had stuck to the course Hadley laid out.
	Hadley said he had no problem with the change in course, and that
there was no way of telling what would have happened if the QE2 took his
more northerly passage out of Vineyard Sound. He noted, however, that he
knew of no recent maritime accidents on the course he had charted.
	Lt. Cmdr. John Wilder of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration said divers found the uncharted rock late Thursday
afternoon in the vicinity of where the QE2 ran into trouble.
	The rock had no growth on it and bore a reddish substance that
appeared to be paint, he said. The divers chipped away samples of the
substance, which were to be given to the Coast Guard for chemical
analysis to see if they came from the QE2.
	The rock is 34 1/2 feet below the water's surface, about 2 feet deeper
than the QE2's draft. Wilder said it is closer to the accident scene
than an uncharted rock found Wednesday that had no traces of paint on
it, but he was unsure as to how close.
	Cunard Lines issued a statement that damage to the hull of the QE2 is
``more extensive'' than first thought and extends to the keel of the
vessel. The QE2 will need ``permanent'' repairs to restore its passenger
certification, and the company is in the process of soliciting bids for
the work.

    The world's last big oceanliner.
    
    Earlier newspaper articles had indicated that the QE2 would be leaving
    Boston on Tues. 8/18.  Now with the damage assessment being worst than 
    previously estimated, When will the QE2 leave Boston.?  To my knowledge
    through newspaper articles there hasn't been an updated departure date.
    
    I spoke to a couple of people who indicated that seeing the QE2 in dry
    dock wasn't really possible due to the area surrounding the ship.  I'd
    like to get to see her underway in Boston harbor.  News regarding the
    projected departure date is requested in this note.
    
    /MArk
    

    Now this morning's Boston Globe says that it's a "well known
    phenomenon" that a displacement hull running fast in shallow water
    will "squat" and run deeper than its draft, and that it wasn't at
    all surprising that the ship ran aground.
    
    The captain of a 962' vessel doesn't know this?  Is it true?
    
    

    
    	Squat is a well know phenomenon and I am sure the skipper knew this
    and took it into account.  Ship running aground, grounding, hitting
    unknown object happen.  Not all the time but still happen and will
    continue to happen.  The bottom line is mistakes happen.....  
    
    
    	As an example the rowing team coach for U Lowell was going on the
    other day about how could it possibly hit bottom.  I reminded him that
    even though he goes through the rocks by Tyng Island on the Merrimack
    twice a day 5 or 6 days a week 9 months of the year he still hits
    rocks.  Not all the time but it still happens once or twice a year.  I
    would argue that he knows that section of river as well as anybody.  
    You find a new rock you did not know about, did not factor in the water
    level or speed correctly.  Lined up the course correctly for normal
    conditions but not for todays water level.
    
    
    Forrest

    Yes squat is a well known phenomenon which is explained by Bernouli's
    Principal.  Accelerated water (the squeezed water) between the bottom
    of the ship and ocean bottom rushes away leaving a low pressure area
    the ship "falls" into.  Yes the Capt 'knew' this but it sounds to me
    as if incorrect charts, squat, high speed and a small safety margin in
    the first place added up and she grounded out.  The high speed
    intensified the squat.
    
    Jeff

    ARen't we really missing the issue?  The question isn't should a
    captail/pilot take a boat that draws 32 feet into 39 foot rocky waters. 
    I think the answer in this case is clearly NO! Why? Becasue there is
    plenty of 80 foot water near by.  You would have to try hard to find
    the 30 foot spots - well maybe not try hard - but there is plenty of
    good water near there.  So I would say the captain/pilot were gravely
    in error.  Sure we have all gone in water more shallow than we like
    when we HAVE to.  But after my looksee at the charts, this captain
    didn't need to at all.  So I guess I'll just keep reading the help
    wanted ads looking for: Wanted - Ship captain for 963 foot ocean liner,
    Good judgment required, excellent benefits, captain may be asked to
    oversee minor repairs. :-)
    
    BTW, there is a spot noted on the chart next to the 39 ft rocky spot
    where teh QEII hit.  It says "wreck" in 51 feet of water.  I wonder if
    another boat did previously find the Queen's Rock.
                                        

    You have raised an issue I was wondering about... that is, what were
    his alternatives? Don't forget, a liner behind schedule which I
    understand the Queen was is under pressure to make up that time.
    According to the charts he had enough water... just enough, but
    supposedly enough.  He cut it close I think, even if he hadn't hit.
    Wouldn't he have had a recording depth sounder running in close
    waters?  I wonder how many times large ships just miss rocks and
    other underwater obstacles... but the crew doesn't even know they
    had a close call.
    
    If he had missed the rock there would be no issue, right? But he took 
    the same chance and did hit it.  Its easy to hip shoot after the fact.
    Piloting a ship is risky... the odds can catch up as they did this
    time.  
    
    I know when out in my boat which draws about 1.5 feet of water I
    SLOW DOWN if in under about 10 feet on my depth sounder.  To scale
    I would be running at WOT in about 1.75 feet of water.  I would be
    nervous with 6 or 7 feet of indicated clearance under my keel if 
    in charge of a large ship going at the speed he was. Hell, one
    needs several miles to stop! 
    
    There has been next to no news about WHAT the damage to the Qeeen is.
    Just references to gashes.  Where, how deeply penetrating, what 
    compartments/tanks/voids penetrated etc. etc. etc.?????
    
    But J.Q. Public wouldn't understand technical talk like that so they
    don't say.
    
     
    

    Is a large ship like this more stable at speed, kind of like an
    airplane?  Would that explain why the ship was travelling fast?
    
    Carl

    	I would think that like most ships/boats it would be more stable at
    cruising speed rather than at a very slow speed.  
    
    Tom

                 
    	I doubt that stability was the reason for the speed they were
    making at the time.  I heard that they were something 5 hours behind
    schedule and were trying to make it up.  Why they picked the route they
    I have no idea.  I do not have charts of the area and have never sailed
    in it.  My bet is that in the end the charts will be update and the
    NTSB will rule it a pure accident and not find the skipper or pilot a
    fault.  But being a government agency they will come out with some new
    operating guidelines.

    	I have seen the QE II in the Virgin Islands ripping along at a
    pretty fair clip in channels that were 40-60 feet deep.  They want to
    give the paying passengers a good view of the islands.  Remember that
    is part of what they are selling on costal and island cruises is a look
    at the land.  If they are 10 miles out in deep water they are
    delivering what they contracted to deliver.  Could this also be a
    factor in the route they picked only the captain for sure.  But it is
    not unusual for them to take her into shallow or restricted waters.

    	The QE II was was designed back when fuel was still relatively
    inexpensive and so 20 Knts is not all that fast for her.  I never saw
    any tank test data for the hull so I do not know what the actual top
    speed is or what optimal cruise is.  A quick back of the envelope
    calculation yields a hull speed of 34 Knts so 20 is well under what she
    is capable of.  But in this day and age most ships cruise well under
    the optimal hull speed in the mid to high teens most of the time.

    	I always got a laugh out of the cruise liners operating out of
    Miami.  They would go out government cut and build up to a really good 
    clip.  Then after dark they would slow way back to a more optimal
    cruise speed.  Had to give the customers a thrill while they could see
    land and then save on the fuel bill.  

    	If you want fast the SS United States the fastest liner ever built
    went over 40 Knts on builders trials.  This was speed was classified
    well into the 70's.  When she set the record for N.Y. to England the
    first time the skipper muttered about only being at half power.  Folks
    at the time thought that it was a boast.  When you consider that the
    speed vs power curves for large displacement hulls is roughly a cubic
    function he was not far from the truth.
       

    Forrest

    Stability had nothing to do with the speed.... making up time explains
    the speed.  The channel they were in was the only way into and out of
    Vineyard Sound. HOWEVER the EXACT course in the channel was variable,
    thus the controversy.
    
    The speed causes 'squat' due to Bernouli's Principal when displacement
    hull boats ships move at high speeds.  The squat MAY have used up the
    slight safety margin the Queen could have had had she been traveling
    at under 18.5 knots which is the speed at which the squat would have
    been markedly reduced... given her hull characteristics.
    

    As far as "squat" goes, I doubt it was all that much even at 20+ knots,
    although only a bit would have made a difference.  Displacement hulls
    tend to really squat when they approach hull speed, or around 1.3 * sq
    rt LWL.  For the QEII that'd be around 40 knots, and she wasn't
    designed to even try for that kind of speed.
    
    Let me toss another possibility into the pot:  tidal-scale waves.  The
    tides themselves are the product of 400 mph waves that circle and slosh
    around the globe, pulled by the moon mostly, and the sun a bit. Any
    number of peculiar circumstances, including an unrecorded subsidence of
    significant proportion in the sea bottom, perhaps in the South
    Atlantic, might have altered the long wave pattern (much longer than
    one can see horizon-to-horizon) enough to have reduced the depth an
    extra foot or two.  Given that the pilot said the tide was 2' above MLW
    at the time, and apparently no one (including NOAA at WHOI) recorded
    any funny business with the tide levels, it's at best a long shot.
    
    RE: cruise ships running at low speed at night, there are a few reasons
    in addition to fuel savings.  For one, things happen more slowly, so
    piloting is easier.  Remember, many of these ships travel in areas
    frequented by many small boats underway at all hours.  For another, if
    you've ever been on a cruise ship, ocean liner or even a large ferry
    overnight, you'll be familiar with the very loud rumble the ship's
    engines and propwash make when underway.  The main reason they slow
    down is to let their paying passengers sleep better!  Obviously,
    ferries and transoceanic liners don't have that luxury.
    
    RE: U.S.S. United States, a bit of background.  As the full name
    shows, she was commissioned as a US Naval vessel, designed
    specifically for fast troop transport back when that was considered an
    important strategic capability.  With R&D and some construction costs
    underwritten by the US Gummint, she has an all-alluminum superstructure
    and lightweight fittings throughout.  All her furniture, for instance,
    was made of lightweight materials, often aluminum tubing.  The contrast
    with other ocean liners was quite noticeable.  (Our family made a
    series of ocean crossings by liner in the 50's and 60's, when as a
    yout' I inhaled information about each ship we went on, including the
    United States and the Queen Elizabeth (I).)
    
    The United States held the Blue Ribband trans-Atlantic record for many
    years, and some argue she still should, rather than a relatively small
    purpose-built fuel tank with engines that took the new record a few
    years ago.  The U.S. record was around 48 or 49 knots over a 24-hour
    period during sea trials on her maiden T.A. voyage (when she took the
    Blue Ribband); interestingly, having churned out that incredible 56 mph
    pace, she sandbagged it the rest of the way to Southampton, and still
    took the record.  If she'd maintained that demonstrated top speed, she'd
    still have the record. 
    

      Re. .28 "Squat not all that much"   According to some marine expert
    at MIT (can't remember his name) the squat could have been as much as
    SEVEN FEET! I believe it was 4 to 7 feet he said. I call even 4 feet
    alot, let alone seven when running with barely 8 feet of expected
    clearance, put in the squat conservatively at 4 feet, plus a chart
    error, and according to the expert a DIP of the bows if the ship came
    upon a SUDDEN shoal from relatively deeper water and bang she hits.
    Not all that suprising IMO.
    
    I saw a photo today of the Queens hull (finally saw a photo)  although
    the photo was poor it clearly showed the starboard side of the hull
    bashed in.  If the collision was due to squat (contradicting myself
    here) I would expect BOTTOM damage as the paper said.  The stbd
    side of the hull above the bilge keel toward the taper of the bow
    was bashed in.... THAT indicates to me that there was ALOT less water
    than the media has let on.  Perhaps 20 feet of water vs 30 something.
    I think there is more going on regarding that incident than we are 
    being told... i.e. it was a case of running into a reef which hit her
    side rather than a 'bump' on the bottom due to slightly less water.
    
    Jeff

    I read a similar article in yesterdays paper, it cover the "squat"
    
    theory, as i recall 7 feet was mentioned. This mornings news showed
    
    the hull damage. Quite the gash. The paper also mentioned that
    this would be the last trip os such kind ever, i.e. shallow,
    rock laided waters.
    
    In past years i have seen the top of the QEII passing thru
    vineyard sound, from Cuttyhunk, seems to me that they were
    furhter out than this trip. I can't be sure, i had no way
    to compare the distance. For a boat this size, 24 knots
    is good speed, but i'm surprised they would travel at that
    speed thru vineyard sound, it ain't that big.
    
    The other thing i noticed this morning, she's a twin screw,
    i would have guessed 4. (did i miss the other 2)
    
    
    JIm.
     

    A couple of years ago she was refitted with diesels.  In place of the
    steam turbines.  I would guess the number of props was reduced from 4
    to 2 at that time.
    
    
    KC
    

    Normally there is a limitation of Squat that a ship can runn in
    according his speed.
    I don't thing that she was running more than 20 mil. per hour,
    which it would be a not at all economical speed for that liner.
    Let's believe the story of unchartered rock,which produced her
    bottom damage.

    "Not running at more than 20 MPH"  Why would the Capt. OVERSTATE his
    speed when he had just hit a rock???????????????  The human thing to
    do is say 'oh I wasn't going very fast' not INFLATE THE SPEED.  I 
    believe he stated his speed accurately because the speed is not hard
    to calculate and you can be sure the lawyers WILL dredge the speed
    up as evidence.  So why lie?  I belive he didn't misrepresent the
    speed. 
    
    Where was the gash?  On the BOTTOM of the ship, (keel area) or on
    the sides of the hull above the turn of the bilge?  If above the
    turn of the bilge I believe squat is a moot point.  If in
    the keel area squat is a big factor.
    
    Jeff

    I used to be a "quartermaster" on an Army ocean going vessel. When one
    enters a "foreign" port, it is required that you use the local pilots
    (unions rules?). Anyway, we did this going into Puerto Rico some years
    back, fresh out of the shipyard with a new paint job mind you, and the
    local Pilot managed  to scape our vessel along a dock 300 yards in
    advance of our bearth. The choices were either submit a damage claim or
    simply forget it ever happend and keep the cash allocated for the
    Pilot.
    
    We had quite a nice party afterwards with the several hundres dollars
    that had been allocated to the Pilot. Of course, we did have this long
    scrape in our brand new paint job.

    RE: Squat, seven feet certainly is significant.  What I can't believe
    is that the vessel's draft underway isn't very well known.  If she
    squats, then that gets added to the known vessel draft.  The way they
    run those ships, that kind of slip-up just doesn't happen, at least not
    that big (i.e., you know you're 32' draft, you squat 7' more, so figure
    there's a chance you'll miss or just skim over that 39' spot on the
    chart....)  
    
    I continue to favor the LUROW Theory (Large Uncharted Rock Or Wreck),
    for which every navigation aid and fresh-off-the-press charts are worth
    (you guessed it:) squat.
    
    ;-),  J.

    Draft is figured in the not underway condition... at least the nominal
    draft is.  Squat SHOULD be known about and figured in by the Capt.
    I certainly wouldn't be comfortable running my ship at 24 knots with
    less than six feel of clearance between my keel and the bottom.  The
    Capt. appeared unfazed at running at high speed with so little margin
    of error... I can't understand his lack of concern, or willingness to
    have done that... he just plan trusted the charts, period.
    
    Jeff

    
    Officials announced this morning they have located the uncharted
    object which was struck by the QE2, causing millions of dollars 
    in damage.
    
    
    
    It was one of Ted Kennedy's old cars.    8*)
    
    Rick

    Ok Rick.... that is a good one.
    
    Jeff