Repeating myself: Hopefully, we weigh function versus capability versus cost versus safety, etc and come up with reasonable solutions. Are they guarantees? Nope. **** happens.
Interesting discussion - Ron but where are we going with it? What was the POV (point of view) you embraced when you started the thread? Maybe I misread it and/or read too much into it. But it seemed you equated too big/too many folks equals to a disaster waiting to happen, and our inability to rapidly respond and recover when it did happen.
So we agree - nobody knows the answer to "How big is too big". Your latest post puts forth that what capacity the vessel is used and typical occupancy are the primary factors in deciding. Thus, the (previously acknowledge youth and skill of aircraft carrier crew offsets capacity/length issues) whereas for the "use" of "cruising" that offset becomes unavailable so no comparision would be reasonable.
Other than an academic exercise - I have no pony in this race. I could care less whether the Princess Cruise ship is 400ft or 4000ft ... or if it carries 1000 passengers or 10000 passengers. Not a customer, stakeholder, or hobbiest. But I do consider myself a sailor still
So ramblin on (as I'm too thinking as typing)...
Technology has offset some of the previous hazards - not eliminated, but offset. In communications - from the days of the Titantic to today we've advanced tremendously. Where the rockets red glare was once interpreted incorrectly as partying - we now have Digital Selective Calling - and one button, hands off distress notification systems, with GPS automatic position indicators. As you mentioned - handcranked, lowered wooden open cabin lifeboats have given way to motorized self contained life pods. We have SART (SAR Transponders), EPRIB's (Electronic Positioning Radio Indicating Beacons), Distress conventions - near shore and off shore distess assets, and so forth and so on. Bottom line - when a disaster happens - we have greater notification tools, search and find capabilities, and response resources.
So... for the sake of argument ... would limiting the capacity (number of souls at risk) of PAX Vessels - reduce the risk of an overwhelming disaster and SAR response. CERTAINLY. A poor analogy - but one none the less
HAD the WORLD TRADE TOWERS not been that tall - they would not have been a prime target (passing mention to being a terrorist target previously posted).
HAD the WORLD TRADE TOWERS not been that tall - they would not have had that many people in them to be at risk.
HAD the WORLD TRADE TOWERS not been that tall - when the unthinkable happened, more folks would have had a better chance to escape before they fell.
HAD the WORLD TRADE TOWERS not been that tall - with that many people in them - the RESPONDERS to the disaster would have been better able to SAR, less at risk, etc etc.
So... for the sake of argument... engineering for height -
The designers of the WORLD TRADE TOWERS took into consideration, given what risks and normal climate conditions would be experienced or expect, known risks, uses, and other factors to design a building that would be safe and stand up for years to come. Load, typical uses, weight bearing, safety issues, etc all were considered. WAS IT TOO BIG? Some thought so. AND YES - when the unplanned and unthinkable happened (man made) - many died.
DO WE NOW - restrict the height of buildings because of the abnormal situation that was experienced? Do WE NOW - restrict the height of buildings to minimize the risk of massive casualities?
BTW - I don't like tall buildings, with windows that don't open. When I go to Vegas I stay, if at all possible, on lower floors (10-20 stories is about okay with me) - but that is a PREFERENCE.
So I'm going to differ with others on size, etc. When we build in flood plains - do we consider the 10 year or 100 year or 1000 year flood plain? Each carries it's own risks.
Cruise ships are not hurricane hunters - not good for business. Capacity equates to economies of scale - profits, variety, comfort, and so forth. Whether swimming pools or casinos or tennis courts or whatever - is a marketing/business decision with safety implications and concerns - but ultimately a preference decision of the customer too.
I would agree - at some point - a massive rogue wave ala Posidon Adventure - MIGHT lead to some type of tragedy for a vessel such as the Oasis - but is that the 10 year, 100 year, or 1000 year speculation?
Ron, again, I'm not a naval architect or engineer - but I do feel pretty comfortalbe that they do indeed take into consideration when considering the design of any ship, including cruise ships, som ratio between depth, length, height of ship, and potential uses or occupancy. And test those stability considerations in wave tanks and simulations against realistic known hazards with a safety margin added in.
But **** still happens.
Best Wishes
