4 ms·
Why wouldn’t it be the canals pilot? Because, if I understand correctly, he had an "impossible" job. The ship was heading north, with a 30 mph wind from the w
by PhantomGremlin 6y ago
Why wouldn’t it be the canals pilot?
Because, if I understand correctly, he had an "impossible" job.
The ship was heading north, with a 30 mph wind from the west. Rudder needed to be applied to counter the wind.
The wind stopped, the ship got close to the left bank, then hydrodynamic forces caused it to pivot into the right bank.
Basically, the ship was far too large for that narrow canal. Everything worked OK under good circumstances, but failed in gusty wind. This accident was inevitable.
I also read somewhere that ship was going 13 knots in an area which is supposed to be 8 knots. But maybe that was also necessary because ships need to be moving in order for the rudder to work properly. No motion -> no rudder.
- ornornor 6y ago> Basically, the ship was far too large for that narrow canal. Everything worked OK under good circumstances, but failed in gusty wind. This accident was inevitable. In any case, that sounds more like the canal authority's fault that Evergreen's. If the ship was too large and wasn't rated for using the canal then that would be different, but as it stands the canal said "ships up to that size can use the canal", and Evergreen built a ship up to that size and used the canal.
- JohnJamesRambo 6y agoAre 30mph winds rare there? That seems quite mild. Why hasn’t this happened before?
- simonh 6y agoWe may never know, but it's possible the wind shifted unusually rapidly or chaotically, reversed, or with a ship like that the wind force at the bow and stern were unusually different or even opposite.