The main news channels show only the last ten seconds, which omits anything useful for deducing cause. There is talk of contaminated fuel, which likely would have been loaded in Baltimore.
.
Joe Gwinn
I would not listen to any "talk" about any cause. Just leave that to the investigators and stop speculation. It doesn't help and can do damage.
I know that cargo ships aren't built to the same standards of redundancy as aircraft but it's remarkable to me that this failure managed to take down every external light on the ship by the look of it. Black as pitch, not even the mast beacon stays lit. Very helpful in an emergency.
Incidentally I noticed it looked like the bridge's center beacon admirably kept blinking to the last, even after the rest of the bridge's power gets cut.
I read that cargo ships of this size run diesel generators to power the steering pumps at low speed and then do PTO from the main shaft once they're cruising, and that the black smoke may have been an emergency generator coming up. But the steering pumps probably aren't a priority, in a river current that thing's a cork on backup power.
Ship likely had bow thrusters. Time from start of event to crash appears to be a few minutes. Time from deciding emergency power was needed to it being on-line probably too short? Would think bow thrusters would be powered.
Out of all the hours it sailed in operation, maintenance checks were all fine then out of the blue not 1 but 3 power failures, and not out in the middle of the ocean from harms way...just close enough to a bridge and hit the weakest spot. What a "fluke"
Hardly. Murphy's law can apply IRL. Dirty fuel seems quite plausible.
The bridge was *designed* to fail catastrophically if anything hit one of its main supports which is unforgivable on a bridge that is over a waterway leading to one of the busiest Atlantic ports in America.
Most big bridges in first world countries have buffer islands and underwater structures to deflect and/or slow a large vessel to prevent them from impacting any of the key support structures near a live shipping channel. The ship may ground and be damaged and the bridge shaken by that impact but that should be about the limit of what can happen to a properly designed bridge in these circumstances.
Also it can take a very long time to alter course with a large vessel.
The ship issued a Mayday which saved lives by closing the bridge to new traffic before the impact but it was very sad for the road crews working on the road deck.
Why was the operation done without tow boats, was that customary?
Where I live, we barely avoided a sea oil catastrophe about a month ago. A sea tanker ship (Front Siena) was approaching harbour without requesting a pilot, not contacting, and not responding to radio. And on a collision course to the rocks.
The pilot made haste, boarded the ship unaided and in the dark, all deck lights off. When he reached the bridge, there were 7 people there just chatting. He was offered a coffee; instead he started roaring orders. Reverse engines top speed, two tow boats pushing, anchor dropped. Stopped one mile from the rocks (more or less, from memory).
Ship fined.
Spanish link with AIS route map
Tow boats charge for their time. Most commercial shipping dispenses with them as soon as it is practical to do so. In that comparatively wide channel there was no reason why they should have been under tow by tugs.
Main engine total failure is comparatively unusual these days. Although UK Type 45 destroyers combine engines that sound like a bag of spanners with a nasty tendency to overheat and fail completely when used in the Middle East. Dead in the water with no propulsion or main system power.
But in this instance there *were* local pilots on board the vessel and presumably in charge of it. Only when the black box is analysed will it become clear exactly what happened, but failure of the main engines and its generator looks like a candidate. It is also possible that the backup systems misfired or failed to work when needed. It is odd that the thing went entirely dark due to power loss - most vessels have at least some emergency lighting that is self contained and independent.
It is incredibly dark at night on the open seas (unless there is a moon) so backup lighting is important.
Much less exciting here in the UK most ships obey the rules.
Bridges would not similarly fail when you take out a pier for a major span?
The United States Secretary of Transportation (Buttigieg) has said he doesn't know of any bridge that could withstand a similar hit. Hard to imagine how you could protect from the energy in such a massive ship.
Also I think we have plenty of evidence that these hare-brained Dr. Evil schemes are not the way major nation-states do their dirty work anymore (if they ever did.)
If they want someone dead they send some guys to straight-up gun the target down one day as they walk out of their front door, like Russia has been doing in Spain recently, and like Israel has been doing everywhere for decades.
If they want a bridge blown up they drop some of those same guys off with some C4 and blow it up.
It all has a much greater chance of achieving the same effect reliably and is still entirely plausibly deniable. "We didn't blow up your bridge, don't know anything about that. And even if we did what are you gonna do about it. Bitch"
Yes, a passenger cruiser.
The evacuation of Costa Concordia took over six hours, and of the 3,229 passengers and 1,023 crew known to have been aboard, 32 died. Francesco Schettino, the ship's captain at that time, was tried and found guilty of manslaughter, causing a maritime accident, and abandoning his ship. He was sentenced to sixteen years in prison in 2015.[3] The wreck was salvaged three years after the incident and then towed to the port of Genoa, where she was scrapped.[4]
:-D
Sigh.
Yeah, the Front Siena could be under such an autopilot system and the crew confidently waiting for the buzzer to warn to change to manual mode.
I think other method is for the autopilot to switch off and sound a buzzer on arrival.
Obviously a mistake.
The decision to use a tow boat or not should not be up to them.
I feel there will be more failures- It comes from subcontracting and generally lowering costs and regulations.
Yeah, quite strange that crucial lights did not have battery backup.
This is a first, nobody seems to remember anything similar.
About half of the crew was instantly fired, including the captain and the second in command.
The article comments on the lower quality of international crews in general.
Cheaper is always better. The crew was 100% Pakastani / Indian, they are the cheapest solution. Play stupid games, eventually win stupid prizes.
Maybe if the country relied less on cheap disposable products and labor from 3rd world cesspool countries this has no chance of happening.
Still, people love dialing up a URL in China or Alibabba and get a dopamine rush buying cheap stuff so those countries send more freeloaders here to burden our infrastructure because we ask for it.
If they cant run a bridge in their own country they sure as hell dont know what it is somewhere else and should not be anywhere near one.
Everything has to be "politically correct" because god forbid we offend some low IQ alien and deny them a job and "hurt their feelings"
So we watch people fall to their deaths from the WTC on 911 and now an entire bridge collapse and more people fall to their death.
That could be any one of us at any time thinking we have a safe system with not only incompetent people behind the wheel, but also way up top at the "financial services" sector, where Wall St MUST show a profit at all costs even at the expense of public safety.
True.
I use the mirrors for backing up, but actually the rear camera has a better view, so I use it most of the time.
I have no automatics for changing lanes.
It is what airplanes do. On certain conditions, the autopilot disengages and sounds some type of alarm in the cockpit.
On some bridges, only the spans directly supported by that pier fall, not all.
With a massive island, but that reduces the passage for ships, which then have more chances to crashing into it, and impairs traffic.
So main span falls and on the other side of the pier that did not fail the approach stays intact? Falling main span does not affect pier?
So island is anchored and constructed so a hit from a massive container ship won't destroy it or tip it (how far down does it go)?. And has to be bigger than how far into the island the ship penetrates plus how far the bow sticks out plus how far the bow dents in? Plus the pier can survive the shock (like earthquake proof)? Where does the energy go?
Requiring tugs to accompany large ships may be more practical. One may assume that wasn't required here. Bow thrusters probably make maneuvering ships in a harbor without a tug practical.
Yes.
A few years ago there was a high speed train accident in Spain. The driver did not slow down when nearing certain curve, he was distracted maybe talking with the conductor.
79 deaths.He got the full and sole blame.
Not even the surviving victims and families of the dead accept this.
The truth is that that section of the track did not have the security systems that other tracks or sections of this same track have. These systems would have warned the driver, sounded and alarm, and ultimately stopped the train.
But there was hurry to build and put the tracks into service.
It is bollocks to trust the security of hundreds of passengers on a train doing over 200 Km/h to a single person. Trust that he will be fully attentive and not commit errors during every second of a few hours.
The camera sees way more. Often the camera sees a person that is not in the mirror, it is on the other mirror, or even nowhere.
If the camera doesn't start, I wait.
It is not an automatic warning system, I still have to be looking attentively.
It is possible.
Yep.
Yep.
Right.
Depends on the design.
I can not tell you what they do, only that I read or heard comments from "experts" saying so.
Heat, and metal crushing :-)
Yeah, the island has to be massive, which is a problem for traffic.
Yep.
It is. I'm in my 70s, and no longer can look over my shoulders, so I try to maneuver the car enough to see for instance oncoming traffic when entering a highway. My wife also has this problem, but a bit less so.
Nor is it possible to see backwards out of modern cars, which have become far too aerodynamic, with tiny misplaced rear windows, so we depend on those backup cameras. Which can be rendered useless by slush or droplets of water on the lens.
Joe Gwinn
It doesn't hurt, but it's mechanically impossible. Don't know the exact cause, but it's quite common.
My wife and I both got small SUVs for that reason. And cataract surgery really helped. Still cannot see out the back - tunnel vision, very deceptive.
I originally drove straight into my down-sloping driveway, and backed back out. One fine day I almost ran over an elderly neighbor by backing into him. He could not move fast enough to escape. I saw him just in time in the side mirror.
Now I back in, and drive out, because I can see far better, in both directions.
I would think that the headrests could be folded down. Ours are foldable.
Joe Gwinn
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.