5 ms·

The problem is that there are a thousand merchant marine vessels operating right now that are all doing great - until the next loose wire. The problem is that n

The problem is that there are a thousand merchant marine vessels operating right now that are all doing great - until the next loose wire. The problem is that nobody knows about that wire and it worked fine on the last trip. The other systems are all just as marginal as they were on the 'Dali' but that one shitty little wire is masking that. Running a 'tight ship' is great when you have a budget to burn on excellent quality crew. But shipping is so incredibly cut-throat that the crew members make very little money, are effectively modern slaves and tend to carry responsibilities way above their pay grade. They did what they could, and more than that, and for their efforts they were rewarded with what effectively amounted to house arrest while the authorities did their thing. The NTSB of course will focus on the 'hard' causes. But you can see a lot of frustration shine through towards the owners who even in light of the preliminary findings had changed absolutely nothing on the rest of their fleet. The recommendation to inspect the whole ship with an IR camera had me laughing out loud. We're talking about a couple of kilometers of poorly accessible duct work and cabinets. You can do that while in port, but while you're in port most systems are idle or near idle and so you won't ever find an issue like this until you are underway, when vibration goes up and power consumption shoots up compared to being in port. There is no shipping company that is effectively going to do a sea trial after every minor repair, usually there is a technician from some supplier that boards the vessel (often while it is underway), makes some fix and then goes off-board again. Vessels that are not moving are money sinks so the goal is to keep turnaround time in port to an absolute minimum. What should really amaze you is how few of these incidents there are. In spite of this being a regulated industry it is first and foremost an oversight failure, if the regulators would have more budget and more manpower there maybe would be a stronger drive to get things technically in good order (resist temptation: 'shipshape').

amelius 1y ago
You can also look at the problem from the perspective of the bridge. Why was it possible that a ship took it down? Motors can fail ...
- richardwhiuk 1y ago
  It’s not realistically plausible to build bridges that won’t be brought down by that size of ship
  - capyba 1y ago
    This, 100%. I forget the specific numbers but regardless, the kinetic energy of a thing with that much mass, even moving at a very slow speed, is off the charts. Designing a bridge or protections for a bridge to survive that would at a minimum be cost prohibitive, if even possible with today’s materials and construction technologies.
    - sitkack 1y ago
      Doesn't mean that nothing can be done. https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/nr20250320.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/nr20250320.as... > The NTSB found that the Key Bridge, which collapsed after being struck by the containership Dali on March 26, 2024, was almost 30 times above the acceptable risk threshold for critical or essential bridges, according to guidance established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or AASHTO. > Over the last year, the NTSB identified 68 bridges that were designed before the AASHTO guidance was established — like the Key Bridge — that do not have a current vulnerability assessment. The recommendations are issued to bridge owners to calculate the annual frequency of collapse for their bridges using AASHTO’s Method II calculation. Letters to the 30 bridge owners and their responses https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-main-public/sr-details/H-25-003 https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-main-public/sr-details/H-25-003
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - throwaway173738 1y ago
        This is essentially the same thing that happened with Fukushima Daiichi. The organization running it failed to respond to new information.
gosub100 1y ago
It's a tangent but I don't understand why the dock workers can unionize and earn livable wages but the crew cannot.
- padjo 1y ago
  The dock can’t move to a jurisdiction that is less union friendly.
  - gosub100 1y ago
    The crew could go on strike and cause a comparable amount of disruption to the supply chain as dock workers.
- themaninthedark 1y ago
  They do have a union: https://www.seafarers.org/ https://www.seafarers.org/ At least on US flagged vessels. Sometimes when I see vocal but rather uninformed opposition to the Jones Act, I wonder if it isn't partially an aim at union busting.
  - hylaride 1y ago
    IIRC the biggest issue with the jones act is the supply of US-built vessels, which are expensive, the current fleet is aging and, outside of defence, there's no real domestic shipbuilding industry anymore. This also means that domestic shipping (especially to populated areas that are not part of the lower 48) can't use anywhere near as much in the way of modern containers. This is anecdotal, but I've heard that people in Puerto Rico and Hawaii routinely order stuff from foreign countries as even with duties, it can be cheaper than ordering it from the mainland. The act is problematic because it hasn't really been modernized, with the handful of revisions essentially just expanding its scope. The US either has to seriously figure out getting domestic shipbuilding going again (to the point where it can be economical to also export them) or at least whitelist foreign countries (eg South Korea) to allow their ships to be used. But that's unlikely in today's political climate.
sitkack 1y ago
> But you can see a lot of frustration shine through towards the owners who even in light of the preliminary findings had changed absolutely nothing on the rest of their fleet. Between making money, perceived culpability and risks offloaded to insurance companies why would they? > The problem is that there are a thousand merchant marine vessels operating right now that are all doing great Are they tho? I generally think you have good takes on things, but this comes across like systemic fatalistic excuse making. > The recommendation to inspect the whole ship with an IR camera had me laughing out loud. Where did this come from? What about the full recommendations from the NTSB. This comment makes it seem like you are calling into question the whole of the NTSB's findings. "Don't look for a villain in this story. The villain is the system itself, and it's too powerful to change." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_colla...
- jacquesm 1y ago
  > Between making money, perceived culpability and risks offloaded to insurance companies why would they? Because it is the right thing to do, and the NTSB thinks so too. >> The problem is that there are a thousand merchant marine vessels operating right now that are all doing great > Are they tho? In the sense that they haven't caused an accident yet, yes. But they are accidents waiting to happen and the owners simply don't care. It usually takes a couple of regulatory interventions for such a message to sink in, what the NTSB is getting at there is that they would expect the owners to respond more seriously to these findings. >> The recommendation to inspect the whole ship with an IR camera had me laughing out loud. > Where did this come from? Page 58 of the report. And no, obviously I am not calling into question the whole of the NTSB's findings, it is just that that particular one seems to miss a lot of the realities involving these vessels. > "Don't look for a villain in this story. The villain is the system itself, and it's too powerful to change." I don't understand your goal with this statement, it wasn't mine so the quotes are not appropriate and besides I don't agree with it. Loose wires are a fact of life. The amount of theoretical redundancy is sufficient to handle a loose wire, but the level of oversight and the combination of ad-hoc work on these vessels (usually under great time pressure) together are what caused this. And I think that NTSB should have pointed the finger at those responsible for that oversight as well, which is 'MARAD', however, MARAD does not even rate a mention in the report.

amelius 1y ago

You can also look at the problem from the perspective of the bridge. Why was it possible that a ship took it down? Motors can fail ...

richardwhiuk 1y ago
It’s not realistically plausible to build bridges that won’t be brought down by that size of ship
- capyba 1y ago
  This, 100%. I forget the specific numbers but regardless, the kinetic energy of a thing with that much mass, even moving at a very slow speed, is off the charts. Designing a bridge or protections for a bridge to survive that would at a minimum be cost prohibitive, if even possible with today’s materials and construction technologies.
  - sitkack 1y ago
    Doesn't mean that nothing can be done. https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/nr20250320.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/nr20250320.as... > The NTSB found that the Key Bridge, which collapsed after being struck by the containership Dali on March 26, 2024, was almost 30 times above the acceptable risk threshold for critical or essential bridges, according to guidance established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or AASHTO. > Over the last year, the NTSB identified 68 bridges that were designed before the AASHTO guidance was established — like the Key Bridge — that do not have a current vulnerability assessment. The recommendations are issued to bridge owners to calculate the annual frequency of collapse for their bridges using AASHTO’s Method II calculation. Letters to the 30 bridge owners and their responses https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-main-public/sr-details/H-25-003 https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-main-public/sr-details/H-25-003
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwaway173738 1y ago
      This is essentially the same thing that happened with Fukushima Daiichi. The organization running it failed to respond to new information.

gosub100 1y ago

It's a tangent but I don't understand why the dock workers can unionize and earn livable wages but the crew cannot.

padjo 1y ago
The dock can’t move to a jurisdiction that is less union friendly.
- gosub100 1y ago
  The crew could go on strike and cause a comparable amount of disruption to the supply chain as dock workers.
themaninthedark 1y ago
They do have a union: https://www.seafarers.org/ https://www.seafarers.org/ At least on US flagged vessels. Sometimes when I see vocal but rather uninformed opposition to the Jones Act, I wonder if it isn't partially an aim at union busting.
- hylaride 1y ago
  IIRC the biggest issue with the jones act is the supply of US-built vessels, which are expensive, the current fleet is aging and, outside of defence, there's no real domestic shipbuilding industry anymore. This also means that domestic shipping (especially to populated areas that are not part of the lower 48) can't use anywhere near as much in the way of modern containers. This is anecdotal, but I've heard that people in Puerto Rico and Hawaii routinely order stuff from foreign countries as even with duties, it can be cheaper than ordering it from the mainland. The act is problematic because it hasn't really been modernized, with the handful of revisions essentially just expanding its scope. The US either has to seriously figure out getting domestic shipbuilding going again (to the point where it can be economical to also export them) or at least whitelist foreign countries (eg South Korea) to allow their ships to be used. But that's unlikely in today's political climate.

sitkack 1y ago

> But you can see a lot of frustration shine through towards the owners who even in light of the preliminary findings had changed absolutely nothing on the rest of their fleet. Between making money, perceived culpability and risks offloaded to insurance companies why would they? > The problem is that there are a thousand merchant marine vessels operating right now that are all doing great Are they tho? I generally think you have good takes on things, but this comes across like systemic fatalistic excuse making. > The recommendation to inspect the whole ship with an IR camera had me laughing out loud. Where did this come from? What about the full recommendations from the NTSB. This comment makes it seem like you are calling into question the whole of the NTSB's findings. "Don't look for a villain in this story. The villain is the system itself, and it's too powerful to change." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_colla...

jacquesm 1y ago
> Between making money, perceived culpability and risks offloaded to insurance companies why would they? Because it is the right thing to do, and the NTSB thinks so too. >> The problem is that there are a thousand merchant marine vessels operating right now that are all doing great > Are they tho? In the sense that they haven't caused an accident yet, yes. But they are accidents waiting to happen and the owners simply don't care. It usually takes a couple of regulatory interventions for such a message to sink in, what the NTSB is getting at there is that they would expect the owners to respond more seriously to these findings. >> The recommendation to inspect the whole ship with an IR camera had me laughing out loud. > Where did this come from? Page 58 of the report. And no, obviously I am not calling into question the whole of the NTSB's findings, it is just that that particular one seems to miss a lot of the realities involving these vessels. > "Don't look for a villain in this story. The villain is the system itself, and it's too powerful to change." I don't understand your goal with this statement, it wasn't mine so the quotes are not appropriate and besides I don't agree with it. Loose wires are a fact of life. The amount of theoretical redundancy is sufficient to handle a loose wire, but the level of oversight and the combination of ad-hoc work on these vessels (usually under great time pressure) together are what caused this. And I think that NTSB should have pointed the finger at those responsible for that oversight as well, which is 'MARAD', however, MARAD does not even rate a mention in the report.