4 ms·
That may be the case, but such assumptions have not been justified for some time (the report says the tugs were let go on entering the channel, which it calls s
by mannykannot 2y ago
That may be the case, but such assumptions have not been justified for some time (the report says the tugs were let go on entering the channel, which it calls standard procedure.) As I noted elsewhere, more recent structures in the vicinity have been given what looks like much more substantial protection.
- bagels 2y agoWhat is the point of the tugs if they don't take it through the part where it's most critical to have a tug?
- mannykannot 2y agoThat is a fair question, and I would guess that there are at least two different issues in play. The first is that the ship probably has little or no ability to steer until it is moving at a few knots (depending on whether it has thrusters; I suspect not.) Once it was moving down the channel, it could steer (assuming the steering gear worked, of course.) The second is probably that no-one with the relevant authority realized how vulnerable the bridge was to the much larger ships that have come into service since it was built (yet someone apparently realized that the adjacent power transmission towers needed better protection; sometimes people are not good at connecting the dots.)
- someguydave 2y agoOh I am sure someone connected the dots, just that no politician wants to spend $bil on infrastructure if they won’t take the blame personally for an immense failure like this