On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:13:14 GMT, "otnmbrd"
wrote:


"rhys" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:49:20 -0400, Joe Bleau
wrote:


But today! I would probably be scared ****less if I were ever caught
in a real blow on one of those floating hotels. They are simply not
designed to take it.

I am not convinced that the officers have the seamanship--or are
allowed to practice it--when these luxury barges are "scheduled" to
cross the Gulf Stream with the current on one beam and the wind on the
other, which I believe was the case here.

First off, you are talking about a ship crossing the Gulf Stream in contrary
conditions, not a yacht.

Right, a yacht has far less windage and probably better righting
motion G

Most importantly, you are discussing a "rogue" wave .... all bets are off,
when hit by one of these, as your speed and heading could easily be set for
one set of sea conditions and this wave can well come from another direction
and is out of character for height.

While this is technically true, my understanding of rogue waves is
that they arise from a synergistic interaction of existing wave trains
and winds, meaning you need some sort of sea to generate one.
Excepting tsunamis in shoal water, I mean.

As for construction of "cruise ships", I'd say that since this ship was hit
by a "rogue" and considering some of the documented damage which has
occurred (such as on the Michaelangelo) that she handled it quite well, with
no apparent tendancy to want to "tip over".

I didn't say "tip over". I was questioning either the seamanship or
the scheduling from head office that determined the ship's routing,
which may have been different had the captain been able to use his own
judgement instead of being the water-borne equivalent of a bus driver.

R.