11 ms·

Current personal suspicion after watching your linked video (excellent discussion by the wgowshipping author) is: Catastrophic engine failure (1:24) causing wi

by araes 3y ago

Current personal suspicion after watching your linked video (excellent discussion by the wgowshipping author) is: Catastrophic engine failure (1:24) causing wide scale power loss. No rudder control, rudder drift, and ship alignment drift (1:24-1:25:30) Power restored and ship reengages prop with bad ship/ruddder alignment (1:25). However, ship is now pushing itself into a further bad turn. Pilot likely stomps the brakes realizing misalignment. Obviously 2-3 minutes is not enough to stop 100,000 tons at 8.5 kts, since it only got to 7.5 kts before crashing. Power loss may have caused total rudder loss. Similar to a car that hits ice, wheels have arbitrary alignment when they reengage road, when power starts being delivered again, car swerves towards concrete barrier even with brakes. Driver with limited crash experience is mostly just panicking and stomping. How many pilots, trained or not, really have any experience with a 100,000 ton ship in a crash situation with responses where seconds matter? Edit: Also, economic disaster for Baltimore. > (Wiki) The Port of Baltimore generates $3 billion in annual wages and salary, as well as supporting 14,630 direct jobs and 108,000 jobs connected to port work. In 2014, the port generated more than $300 million in taxes. 1st in automobiles, light trucks, farm and construction machinery, imported forest products, aluminum, and sugar. 2nd in coal exports. Edit2: Bloomberg has an economic look including info on autos. ~$500 million in March 2024 so far. Honda, Mercedes, Subaru likely worst hit. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJmvXiCWkAAgDcE?format=png&name=small https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJmvXiCWkAAgDcE?format=png&name=... 3,600 commercial trucks / day. Hazardous material transport has a 30 mile detour. Baltimore had $350 million of insurance. However, Brent Spence Bridge is noted for cost comparison at $3.6 billion and 1/5 the length. Baltimore StreamTime also has live view with ongoing discussion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83a7h3kkgPg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83a7h3kkgPg

pseingatl 3y ago
Panama Canal pilots.
jcgrillo 3y ago
I'm not sure what configuration of props a ship like this has, but in my experience with a 40ft sailboat with a single propeller you have absolutely no rudder authority while reversing. I've read that some large ships also are direct drive--there's no transmission between the engine and the propeller, so "reversing" (if it's even possible) entails shutting down the engine and restarting it in reverse. This can be done with a two stroke engine. And yes, 8.5kt is not slow when you're displacing 100k tons, no correction will happen quickly.
- culebron21 3y ago
  This reminded me of an old physics book I read where author claimed that Titanic also lost rudder control and yawed because of full reverse.
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    Titanic was a “triple screw steamer,” meaning it had three propellers - port, center and starboard. The port and starboard propellers were capable of being reversed, while the center propeller could only propel forward. You can see this in the 1997 movie as they show the props when they throw the ship into reverse. The center prop (that only goes forward) is the one directly behind the rudder, so the theory is partly that they lost some steering advantage when they lost the center prop.
- supportengineer 3y ago
  No variable-pitch propeller?
- wlll 3y ago
  > in my experience with a 40ft sailboat with a single propeller you have absolutely no rudder authority while reversing. In general it depends on the rudders and the boat. Longer keeled boats don't respond well in reverse at all but more modern boats (like mine, 1990) will do better but will still need some way to have steerage. I can certainly manouver around the marina in reverse, it's just harder than forwards and I need to be going a bit faster to get the control.
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    Long keeled boats don't respond well going forward either, right? Compared to flater boats with a modern keel.
    - wlll 3y ago
      All I really know about long keels is from what people have said. They tend to track well and don't tend to make as much leeway, but perhaps at the expense of speed due to the wetted area, and they are hard to steer backwards. Not being particularly manouverable forwards isn't really an issue if you're spending several hours going mostly in a straight line. Modern flat boats (like the 2017 Dufour I learned on) are highly manouverable at slow speed, we practiced spinning the boat on the spot by using prop wash over the rudder forwards then ticking over in reverse. Could turn the boat in not much more space than the boat length, but may not track as well, may slam more, and make more leeway.
paddy_m 3y ago
On ships like this the propulsion is separate from the steering. There is a separate rudder that is close to, but not attached to the prop and propshaft. The propshaft is fixed. The rudder doesn't just "restart in a random position" it would remain in the previous position unless there was a physical piece that broke in the rudder gear. The fact that ship was able to reverse hard ( as evidenced by the slowdown), indicates to me that the prop was most likely still attached to the propshaft and hadn't flown off to mangle the rudder. We still don't know exactly what happened on board, but it is interesting to work through possible scenarios. Pilots certainly have experience with ship handling of 100,000 ton ships, that's their job. Pilots coordinate the moves of multiple tugs to assist with docking regularly.
- thekid314 3y ago
  Was there a harbor pilot on board, or the normal ship pilot? Were there tug boats helping with the exit? I have often felt that the harbor protocols were overkill, but this is one of the times they could have helped.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Once the ship is under way I don't think the tugs hang around. They are just for the push away from the dock and initial turns.
    - Amezarak 3y ago
      It's very typical for pilots to be required for all entrance and egress from harbors, much more than the initial pushaway and turning but for quite a long distance through the channel.
      - lupire 3y ago
        Pilots or tugs?
        defrost 3y ago
lotu 3y ago
> How many pilots, trained or not, really have any experience with a 100,000 ton ship in a crash situation with responses where seconds matter? I would expect anyone piloting such a ship in a harbor/under bridges. We requite airline pilots to train for many unlikely plane failures because the alternative is letting planes crash that we could have saved with better training.
- animex 3y ago
  You can train for it, then how many years into your career you actually experience such a scenario are you likely to act instinctually and recover. The best solution would be to improve autopilot assist as it will never forget how to correct (if possible).
  - sierrah 3y ago
    Lol you're right, controlling a ship with human inputs is so hard that is was the inspiration for a Russian shipmaster to create PID control
    - londons_explore 3y ago
      But I believe no big ships use any kind of autopilot while near shore. they only use it in the middle of the ocean.
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    Part of the emergency reponse they are drilled with in simulators are "memory items" that are literally memorized responses to emergencies, i.e. "reverse engines, drop anchor" this is to prevent freezing or indecision. Of course I guess that can still happen but they are trained to the point where it should be automatic.
  - verandaguy 3y ago
    If it’s anything like airline pilot training, there’s periodic retraining and evaluation to make sure pilots have the right reactions in case of an emergency.
hammock 3y ago
>How many pilots, trained or not, really have any experience with a 100,000 ton ship in a crash situation with responses where seconds matter? I would hope, given the economic and humanitarian consequences of a crash, that we have simulators for this
- OtherShrezzing 3y ago
  We have miniature physical simulators for it with reduced scale ships & environments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jplrbxI5GN8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jplrbxI5GN8
forgetfreeman 3y ago
Catastrophic engine failure doesn't sound like a problem that's resolvable in 60 seconds.
traceroute66 3y ago
> How many pilots, trained or not, really have any experience with a 100,000 ton ship in a crash situation with responses where seconds matter? I think you are missing the point. Clearly I am speculating, but I don't think any more experience would have helped in this event. Why ? I think what happened today was almost entirely down to not being able to fight the basic Laws of Physics. Its a well known fact that enormous ships take an equally enormous amount of time and distance to reflect the actions of the captain. You make an input and you see the result a bunch of time and distance later. Time and distance were, sadly, not on the captain's side today. Physics took care of the rest.
- joelshep 3y ago
  To continue the speculation ... as a ship that size is slow to turn or halt, that seems to suggest that even if the ship hadn't suffered a power failure then it would have passed quite close to the bridge pier anyway. Was that expected?
  - efitz 3y ago
    Yes, it was expected. Ports have "channels", essentially traffic lanes. Until the first power failure, the Dali was in the proper lane and would not have collided with anything if she had remained there.
1letterunixname 3y ago
I hope the next POTUS makes good on Biden's promises because Baltimore and Maryland will need federal assistance since they can't afford such a burden. And I assume there will lawsuits to recover costs as this caused economic damage and risk to life (8 people unaccounted for at current time).
- xp84 3y ago
  I'm kind of confused how a President can promise something like that. He doesn't have any power to appropriate money, and given his party's lack of control of Congress, I'd argue he can't promise anything. Not to mention that one can scarcely find a "bluer" area than Baltimore -- I would assume that the most proudly right-wing politicians would be more than happy to let Baltimore suffer to score points with their polarized supporters. I hope it doesn't come to that, but they tried to block Hurricane Sandy relief, despite every hurricane in the South being an automatic 'non-partisan' emergency.
  - chx 3y ago
    > It's my intention that the federal government will pay for the entire cost of reconstructing that bridge and I expect the Congress to support my effort This is what he said. I would expect Congress to play along too -- just how unpopular would it be to abandon Baltimore??
    - fasa99 3y ago
      "- just how unpopular would it be to abandon Baltimore?? " I mean I'm from the Baltimore area and.. well.. I mean some of us would consider that town somewhat abandoned already, think Detroit. It has some pretty rough parts. With the main triggering event being 60s/70s loss of steel industry (Bethlehem Steel). Of all the big east coast cities (Boston, DC, NYC, Philly, Baltimore) I would say Baltimore is the most abandoned already.
    - red-iron-pine 3y ago
      > just how unpopular would it be to abandon Baltimore?? As someone else posted above, Baltimore is a massively important US seaport, that moves tons and tons of goods. Even the most pro-business Republican realizes that a lot of industries are going to get hurt, and in places far away from Baltimore, if they can't move freight through there.
dboreham 3y ago
This seems like a system architecture error. Boats do weird shit sometimes and so bridges need to be deigned to not fall down when a boat crashes into them. Requiring a huge boat to be steered to meter resolution when clearly that's not always going to happen is top shelf stupidity. Up there with backup generators in the basement below the water table.
- FredFS456 3y ago
  My civ engineer friend says that bridges are supposed to have barriers in front of their pylons for this particular reason - in the event of a collision, the barrier would be destroyed but not the pylon.
  - reaperman 3y ago
    I can’t find any bridges which have a barrier that can protect against a fully loaded container ship. I have seen plenty of barriers which would protect against personal watercraft and smaller working ships like smaller tugs/coast guard ships/shrimping boats, etc. But a loaded container ship at 8 knots is not going to be stopped by anything remotely feasible. Container ships weigh between 50,000 and 220,000 tons. A US aircraft carrier weighs 100,000 tons.
    - pja 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_%28structure%29?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_%28structure%29?wprov=... If they're designed to stop a bulk carrier then presumably they can stop a container ship.
      - userbinator 3y ago
        That article gives an example of being hit by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Summit_Venture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Summit_Venture deadweight tonnage of 33,912, gross tonnage of 19,735, and a net tonnage of 13,948. The one that took down this bridge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Dali https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Dali Her registered gross and net tonnages are 91,128 and 52,150, respectively, and her deadweight tonnage is 116,851 Many times larger.
UncleOxidant 3y ago
> Baltimore had $350 million of insurance. Wouldn't the ship's insurance be the one paying here?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- willcipriano 3y ago
  Baltimore's insurance will probably sue the ship's insurance if I had to guess.
- ViewTrick1002 3y ago
  I bet we will see a General Average play out. Gonna be a legal mess for years to come. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_average https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_average
killjoywashere 3y ago
I've driven a number of vessels, ranging from a 17' dinghy to a nuclear aircraft carrier and have a number of friends who have been involved in accidents one way or another. I have personally not had the conn during disaster, but have been an engineering officer and a legal officer responding to them, on my ship. To be honest, steering a ship under most conditions is not hard. The anxiety-provoking issues are 1) poor bridge team management (aka toxic leadership) and 2) engineering disasters, which this appears to be. This > Similar to a car that hits ice, wheels have arbitrary alignment when they reengage road, when power starts being delivered again, car swerves towards concrete barrier even with brakes. Driver with limited crash experience is mostly just panicking and stomping. is almost certainly not the case on a large ship. The rudder is rotated hydraulically. Loss of power simply causes the rudder to stop moving, it's effectively "stuck". Some ships have manual override using a massive wrench, but it takes hours to move the rudder meaningfully in that situation. As for this: > How many pilots, trained or not, really have any experience with a 100,000 ton ship in a crash situation with responses where seconds matter? Probably way more than you think. This is a significant reason why they seem so calm when they show up on the bridge. They just hopped from a relatively tiny pilot boat or tug onto a massive ship, possibly with significant sea state. This can be some Indiana Jones level crazy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18VF8WXWfZw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18VF8WXWfZw https://youtu.be/C8ER9Ladqg4?si=Ijwhu90iJi8WPAas&t=226 https://youtu.be/C8ER9Ladqg4?si=Ijwhu90iJi8WPAas&t=226 Pilots are very seasoned mariners who have seen multiple losses of power, and pretty much everything. Now, back to point 1: bridge team. I have seen a captain the crew trusts execute flawless maneuvers even in exigent circumstances. I have seen a captain the same crew doesn't trust fail repeatedly at everyday things. We don't have the whole story yet. What happened on the bridge? What happened in the plant? Why did power drop? Did they flood an online generator with diesel oil? I ask because I've seen that happen. Did they blow an exhaust manifold? Seen that. Did they trip the plant by getting preparatory checklist work backward? Seen that. Did they go all back full immediately? Possible that they couldn't ring the order if they dropped power. Was there panic on the bridge (bad sign) or was there grim fortitude to process checklists that would never help (better sign). In any case, no doubt the captain is done. Probably happy to never drive a ship again after that, tbh.
- somenameforme 3y ago
MBCook 3y ago
Admittedly very naive question: would they have an anchor? Would it be long enough to hit the channel bed? Could dropping it have helped prevent, or at least slow down, the ship? Or even if so was it just too late when it all went down and it wouldn’t have made a meaningful difference?
- donw 3y ago
  Given the forces involved, dropping anchor probably would probably massively damage the ship without sufficiently arresting its momentum, and add another uncontrollable variable into its trajectory.
- nradov 3y ago
  The video linked above shows that the vessel had dropped anchor. However, anchors aren't very effective at that speed. They will just drag on the bottom or the chain will snap. There's just too much momentum.

by araes 3y ago

pseingatl 3y ago

Panama Canal pilots.

jcgrillo 3y ago

I'm not sure what configuration of props a ship like this has, but in my experience with a 40ft sailboat with a single propeller you have absolutely no rudder authority while reversing. I've read that some large ships also are direct drive--there's no transmission between the engine and the propeller, so "reversing" (if it's even possible) entails shutting down the engine and restarting it in reverse. This can be done with a two stroke engine. And yes, 8.5kt is not slow when you're displacing 100k tons, no correction will happen quickly.

culebron21 3y ago
This reminded me of an old physics book I read where author claimed that Titanic also lost rudder control and yawed because of full reverse.
- qingcharles 3y ago
  Titanic was a “triple screw steamer,” meaning it had three propellers - port, center and starboard. The port and starboard propellers were capable of being reversed, while the center propeller could only propel forward. You can see this in the 1997 movie as they show the props when they throw the ship into reverse. The center prop (that only goes forward) is the one directly behind the rudder, so the theory is partly that they lost some steering advantage when they lost the center prop.
supportengineer 3y ago
No variable-pitch propeller?
wlll 3y ago
> in my experience with a 40ft sailboat with a single propeller you have absolutely no rudder authority while reversing. In general it depends on the rudders and the boat. Longer keeled boats don't respond well in reverse at all but more modern boats (like mine, 1990) will do better but will still need some way to have steerage. I can certainly manouver around the marina in reverse, it's just harder than forwards and I need to be going a bit faster to get the control.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  Long keeled boats don't respond well going forward either, right? Compared to flater boats with a modern keel.
  - wlll 3y ago
    All I really know about long keels is from what people have said. They tend to track well and don't tend to make as much leeway, but perhaps at the expense of speed due to the wetted area, and they are hard to steer backwards. Not being particularly manouverable forwards isn't really an issue if you're spending several hours going mostly in a straight line. Modern flat boats (like the 2017 Dufour I learned on) are highly manouverable at slow speed, we practiced spinning the boat on the spot by using prop wash over the rudder forwards then ticking over in reverse. Could turn the boat in not much more space than the boat length, but may not track as well, may slam more, and make more leeway.

paddy_m 3y ago

On ships like this the propulsion is separate from the steering. There is a separate rudder that is close to, but not attached to the prop and propshaft. The propshaft is fixed. The rudder doesn't just "restart in a random position" it would remain in the previous position unless there was a physical piece that broke in the rudder gear. The fact that ship was able to reverse hard ( as evidenced by the slowdown), indicates to me that the prop was most likely still attached to the propshaft and hadn't flown off to mangle the rudder. We still don't know exactly what happened on board, but it is interesting to work through possible scenarios. Pilots certainly have experience with ship handling of 100,000 ton ships, that's their job. Pilots coordinate the moves of multiple tugs to assist with docking regularly.

thekid314 3y ago
Was there a harbor pilot on board, or the normal ship pilot? Were there tug boats helping with the exit? I have often felt that the harbor protocols were overkill, but this is one of the times they could have helped.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Once the ship is under way I don't think the tugs hang around. They are just for the push away from the dock and initial turns.
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    It's very typical for pilots to be required for all entrance and egress from harbors, much more than the initial pushaway and turning but for quite a long distance through the channel.
    - lupire 3y ago
      Pilots or tugs?
      - defrost 3y ago

lotu 3y ago

> How many pilots, trained or not, really have any experience with a 100,000 ton ship in a crash situation with responses where seconds matter? I would expect anyone piloting such a ship in a harbor/under bridges. We requite airline pilots to train for many unlikely plane failures because the alternative is letting planes crash that we could have saved with better training.

animex 3y ago
You can train for it, then how many years into your career you actually experience such a scenario are you likely to act instinctually and recover. The best solution would be to improve autopilot assist as it will never forget how to correct (if possible).
- sierrah 3y ago
  Lol you're right, controlling a ship with human inputs is so hard that is was the inspiration for a Russian shipmaster to create PID control
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    But I believe no big ships use any kind of autopilot while near shore. they only use it in the middle of the ocean.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  Part of the emergency reponse they are drilled with in simulators are "memory items" that are literally memorized responses to emergencies, i.e. "reverse engines, drop anchor" this is to prevent freezing or indecision. Of course I guess that can still happen but they are trained to the point where it should be automatic.
- verandaguy 3y ago
  If it’s anything like airline pilot training, there’s periodic retraining and evaluation to make sure pilots have the right reactions in case of an emergency.

hammock 3y ago

>How many pilots, trained or not, really have any experience with a 100,000 ton ship in a crash situation with responses where seconds matter? I would hope, given the economic and humanitarian consequences of a crash, that we have simulators for this

OtherShrezzing 3y ago
We have miniature physical simulators for it with reduced scale ships & environments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jplrbxI5GN8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jplrbxI5GN8

forgetfreeman 3y ago

Catastrophic engine failure doesn't sound like a problem that's resolvable in 60 seconds.

traceroute66 3y ago

> How many pilots, trained or not, really have any experience with a 100,000 ton ship in a crash situation with responses where seconds matter? I think you are missing the point. Clearly I am speculating, but I don't think any more experience would have helped in this event. Why ? I think what happened today was almost entirely down to not being able to fight the basic Laws of Physics. Its a well known fact that enormous ships take an equally enormous amount of time and distance to reflect the actions of the captain. You make an input and you see the result a bunch of time and distance later. Time and distance were, sadly, not on the captain's side today. Physics took care of the rest.

joelshep 3y ago
To continue the speculation ... as a ship that size is slow to turn or halt, that seems to suggest that even if the ship hadn't suffered a power failure then it would have passed quite close to the bridge pier anyway. Was that expected?
- efitz 3y ago
  Yes, it was expected. Ports have "channels", essentially traffic lanes. Until the first power failure, the Dali was in the proper lane and would not have collided with anything if she had remained there.

1letterunixname 3y ago

I hope the next POTUS makes good on Biden's promises because Baltimore and Maryland will need federal assistance since they can't afford such a burden. And I assume there will lawsuits to recover costs as this caused economic damage and risk to life (8 people unaccounted for at current time).

xp84 3y ago
I'm kind of confused how a President can promise something like that. He doesn't have any power to appropriate money, and given his party's lack of control of Congress, I'd argue he can't promise anything. Not to mention that one can scarcely find a "bluer" area than Baltimore -- I would assume that the most proudly right-wing politicians would be more than happy to let Baltimore suffer to score points with their polarized supporters. I hope it doesn't come to that, but they tried to block Hurricane Sandy relief, despite every hurricane in the South being an automatic 'non-partisan' emergency.
- chx 3y ago
  > It's my intention that the federal government will pay for the entire cost of reconstructing that bridge and I expect the Congress to support my effort This is what he said. I would expect Congress to play along too -- just how unpopular would it be to abandon Baltimore??
  - fasa99 3y ago
    "- just how unpopular would it be to abandon Baltimore?? " I mean I'm from the Baltimore area and.. well.. I mean some of us would consider that town somewhat abandoned already, think Detroit. It has some pretty rough parts. With the main triggering event being 60s/70s loss of steel industry (Bethlehem Steel). Of all the big east coast cities (Boston, DC, NYC, Philly, Baltimore) I would say Baltimore is the most abandoned already.
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    > just how unpopular would it be to abandon Baltimore?? As someone else posted above, Baltimore is a massively important US seaport, that moves tons and tons of goods. Even the most pro-business Republican realizes that a lot of industries are going to get hurt, and in places far away from Baltimore, if they can't move freight through there.

dboreham 3y ago

This seems like a system architecture error. Boats do weird shit sometimes and so bridges need to be deigned to not fall down when a boat crashes into them. Requiring a huge boat to be steered to meter resolution when clearly that's not always going to happen is top shelf stupidity. Up there with backup generators in the basement below the water table.

FredFS456 3y ago
My civ engineer friend says that bridges are supposed to have barriers in front of their pylons for this particular reason - in the event of a collision, the barrier would be destroyed but not the pylon.
- reaperman 3y ago
  I can’t find any bridges which have a barrier that can protect against a fully loaded container ship. I have seen plenty of barriers which would protect against personal watercraft and smaller working ships like smaller tugs/coast guard ships/shrimping boats, etc. But a loaded container ship at 8 knots is not going to be stopped by anything remotely feasible. Container ships weigh between 50,000 and 220,000 tons. A US aircraft carrier weighs 100,000 tons.
  - pja 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_%28structure%29?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_%28structure%29?wprov=... If they're designed to stop a bulk carrier then presumably they can stop a container ship.
    - userbinator 3y ago
      That article gives an example of being hit by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Summit_Venture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Summit_Venture deadweight tonnage of 33,912, gross tonnage of 19,735, and a net tonnage of 13,948. The one that took down this bridge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Dali https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Dali Her registered gross and net tonnages are 91,128 and 52,150, respectively, and her deadweight tonnage is 116,851 Many times larger.

UncleOxidant 3y ago

> Baltimore had $350 million of insurance. Wouldn't the ship's insurance be the one paying here?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
willcipriano 3y ago
Baltimore's insurance will probably sue the ship's insurance if I had to guess.
ViewTrick1002 3y ago
I bet we will see a General Average play out. Gonna be a legal mess for years to come. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_average https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_average

killjoywashere 3y ago

I've driven a number of vessels, ranging from a 17' dinghy to a nuclear aircraft carrier and have a number of friends who have been involved in accidents one way or another. I have personally not had the conn during disaster, but have been an engineering officer and a legal officer responding to them, on my ship. To be honest, steering a ship under most conditions is not hard. The anxiety-provoking issues are 1) poor bridge team management (aka toxic leadership) and 2) engineering disasters, which this appears to be. This > Similar to a car that hits ice, wheels have arbitrary alignment when they reengage road, when power starts being delivered again, car swerves towards concrete barrier even with brakes. Driver with limited crash experience is mostly just panicking and stomping. is almost certainly not the case on a large ship. The rudder is rotated hydraulically. Loss of power simply causes the rudder to stop moving, it's effectively "stuck". Some ships have manual override using a massive wrench, but it takes hours to move the rudder meaningfully in that situation. As for this: > How many pilots, trained or not, really have any experience with a 100,000 ton ship in a crash situation with responses where seconds matter? Probably way more than you think. This is a significant reason why they seem so calm when they show up on the bridge. They just hopped from a relatively tiny pilot boat or tug onto a massive ship, possibly with significant sea state. This can be some Indiana Jones level crazy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18VF8WXWfZw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18VF8WXWfZw https://youtu.be/C8ER9Ladqg4?si=Ijwhu90iJi8WPAas&t=226 https://youtu.be/C8ER9Ladqg4?si=Ijwhu90iJi8WPAas&t=226 Pilots are very seasoned mariners who have seen multiple losses of power, and pretty much everything. Now, back to point 1: bridge team. I have seen a captain the crew trusts execute flawless maneuvers even in exigent circumstances. I have seen a captain the same crew doesn't trust fail repeatedly at everyday things. We don't have the whole story yet. What happened on the bridge? What happened in the plant? Why did power drop? Did they flood an online generator with diesel oil? I ask because I've seen that happen. Did they blow an exhaust manifold? Seen that. Did they trip the plant by getting preparatory checklist work backward? Seen that. Did they go all back full immediately? Possible that they couldn't ring the order if they dropped power. Was there panic on the bridge (bad sign) or was there grim fortitude to process checklists that would never help (better sign). In any case, no doubt the captain is done. Probably happy to never drive a ship again after that, tbh.

somenameforme 3y ago

MBCook 3y ago

Admittedly very naive question: would they have an anchor? Would it be long enough to hit the channel bed? Could dropping it have helped prevent, or at least slow down, the ship? Or even if so was it just too late when it all went down and it wouldn’t have made a meaningful difference?

donw 3y ago
Given the forces involved, dropping anchor probably would probably massively damage the ship without sufficiently arresting its momentum, and add another uncontrollable variable into its trajectory.
nradov 3y ago
The video linked above shows that the vessel had dropped anchor. However, anchors aren't very effective at that speed. They will just drag on the bottom or the chain will snap. There's just too much momentum.