[sailaway21]

It's tough to even speculate based on the information available. Double hulling is controversial in it's effectiveness and execution. If you double hull in a cellular way you create small compartments which are difficult to monitor or maintain. If the cells are larger you risk additions of large quantities of water that can affect the ship's stabilitym through not only their weight but free surface effects. Perhaps the toughest issue to deal with from a naval architectural standpoint is whether to plumb those spaces. You create a hugely complex pipage system designed to be used perhaps once in it's lifetime. At the same time you create a veritable conduit network of piping capable of distributing water to numerous undesirable places. In any double-hulled ship you create a long-term maintenance nightmare where the insidious forces of corrosion work away unnoticed. As I mentioned previously, that is why the economic life of most ships is in the 20-25 year range. Rust indeed never sleeps.

It would be interesting to see the ship's plans. The inspection deficiencies noted in the article are rather routine items, easily remedied, that ship's may have as deficiencies after almost any inspection. Covered, self-righting lifeboats date only from the 1980's chemical tanker trade and sell for about what a similar sized Catalina does. I'd have them on such a ship, you'd have them on such a ship, but then we are not running that business and the boats present met code. One of the downsides to codifying everything is that once you meet the code it is considered prima facie evidence of safety. Note that covered lifeboats, which carry an air supply as well in the chemical trades, did not originate with building standards requirements. A few somebodies in the business decided that were there a collision and tons of, say, PVC were spilled what good would surviving the drowning be if only to die of liver failure shortly thereafter from the inhalation of PVC fumes.

A speculation not unrelated to Val's. On board ship it is a constant battle in some cases to keep certain normally closed watertight doors closed. Often in the engine room it is discovered or perceived that it is cooler if one of these doors is hooked open. The answer is always that we'd close it if there was a problem. That answer is insufficient if the problem involves engine room flooding or the incapacitation of personnel there. Similarly, manhole covers can be removed for inspection or work in spaces. Often at the end of the day the cover is left off as work will continue on the morrow. And with 32 1-1/4 nuts holding the manhole cover down to the deck or bulkhead it is time consuming and tedious to replace and remove them yet again. It is also true though that you are betting that nothing will happen that night where the cross connection of compartments will not become a threatening situation by chance flooding. Ad then there's always the possibility that a manhole cover got left off leaving the shipyard last time. Happens all the time in this "not my job" world.

I'd suspect Val is close to the mark, we'll probably never know, and the actual ingress point might be difficult to locate on a ship laid out for passenger carriage due to the presence of cabin bulkheads, overheads, and hull ceilings.

As TSteele says, they got there monies worth. No boring old stories from Grandma and Grampa about penguins and seals for them! Thank God things were no worse and the crew competent.