No, I had to look it up. Was not being snarky. When I first read it, I thought is was a misspelling or auto correct issue. Learned a new word today. I did however, know about issues on a ship being called a casualty, so I got that going for me, which is good.C@LAg said:
not sure if you are being serious or snarky... but did you look the word up?
It is correct usage.
Francis Scott key bridge struck by boat
77,557 Views |
829 Replies |
Last: 16 days ago by IndividualFreedom
The vessel was classed by NK.
"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything that I thought it could be."
This is a good example of the possibility of what happened and what possibly should have happened, but humans bypassing procedures and processes to save a buck or make a buck superseded the proper way to handle it.padreislandagfan said:
Vessels this size typically have a harbor tug astern and one alongside when docking. They are not very maneuverable. This allision happened while underway. The online gen failed and the automated switchgear immediately got it back online with standby Gen. power. It looks like when the power returned the pilot made the rudders hard over to correct from the drift. Then the power failed again with rudders now stuck hard over. This situation puts the vessel dead in the water with continued momentum.at current heading. Unfortunately, the bridge pier was dead ahead on the Stbd side. Bad turn of events, but pilot error is not the issue IMO. The real work will be checking maintenance records to determine how long they have had power deficiencies. Ais data shows they lost power underway and were adrift in the recent past. This vessel should have been flagged by ABS and not returned to service until their power distribution problems were verifiably repaired.
In a nutshell, make something idiot proof, and the world will make a bigger idiot.
padreislandagfan said:
Vessels this size typically have a harbor tug astern and one alongside when docking. They are not very maneuverable. This allision happened while underway. The online gen failed and the automated switchgear immediately got it back online with standby Gen. power. It looks like when the power returned the pilot made the rudders hard over to correct from the drift. Then the power failed again with rudders now stuck hard over. This situation puts the vessel dead in the water with continued momentum.at current heading. Unfortunately, the bridge pier was dead ahead on the Stbd side. Bad turn of events, but pilot error is not the issue IMO. The real work will be checking maintenance records to determine how long they have had power deficiencies. Ais data shows they lost power underway and were adrift in the recent past. This vessel should have been flagged by ABS and not returned to service until their power distribution problems were verifiably repaired.
This was my take. Where are the tuggs? I know in the Nueces channel you couldn't enter the port without a tug escort.
Assumption: This part of the channel requires no tugs because it is "easily" maneuverable for a ship this size. Closer into port, they probably pick up and drop off.
CDUB98 said:
Assumption: This part of the channel requires no tugs because it is "easily" maneuverable for a ship this size. Closer into port, they probably pick up and drop off.
Until they have power propulsion issues.
Has anyone considered that this is a result of climate change and maybe a big glacier slid off Greenland and fell into the ocean raising the water level and they didn't realize it?
hph6203 said:
Has anyone considered that this is a result of climate change and maybe a big glacier slid off Greenland and fell into the ocean raising the water level and they didn't realize it?
It looks like they had two tugs assisting when they first got underway. Once they were in the channel the tugs peeled off which is typical as once underway they were not needed. Only time you'd have a tug escorts is some special circumstance or if the pilot requested.
More plausible than all of the conspiracy theories people like Logan, Tate, and Flynn have been putting out.hph6203 said:
Has anyone considered that this is a result of climate change and maybe a big glacier slid off Greenland and fell into the ocean raising the water level and they didn't realize it?
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Which is how often?IslanderAg04 said:CDUB98 said:
Assumption: This part of the channel requires no tugs because it is "easily" maneuverable for a ship this size. Closer into port, they probably pick up and drop off.
Until they have power propulsion issues.
hell. Lizzo could have gone swimming somewhere on the planet.hph6203 said:
Has anyone considered that this is a result of climate change and maybe a big glacier slid off Greenland and fell into the ocean raising the water level and they didn't realize it?
CDUB98 said:Which is how often?IslanderAg04 said:CDUB98 said:
Assumption: This part of the channel requires no tugs because it is "easily" maneuverable for a ship this size. Closer into port, they probably pick up and drop off.
Until they have power propulsion issues.
Not sure. But i would say this time was pretty catastrophic. Seems like a small security blanket for large vessels of this type. But as with most things currently, we are a reactive and not a proactive society.
Gotta keep ear tags and gps trackers on 'em to make sure they're not destroying bridges half a world away. No island life for you!
So I was reading a report where loss of power to these big ships happens more often than people realize but they have backup power generators and that the backup power should allow then to steer their vessels? Can anyone of you ship guys explain this ? Someone touched on it briefly .. one guy says the big puff of black smoke was probably the backup genset kicking on?
There were two power outages based on the video. The smoke was seen after the first and was probably the result of the backup coming online. If the backup came up and then was knocked offline by whatever knocked the first one offline, that would explain the 2nd outage and the inability to avoid the bridge pier.
Clavell said:
How do you know it is an elections year?
President says federal government should pay to replace bridge that was originally paid for entirely by Maryland Transportation Authority toll bonds.
"Funded entirely by Maryland Transportation Authority toll bonds, the bridge cost $60.3 million."
And is insured for over a billion
Yes, Hanlon's razor - Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.Rapier108 said:Probably because there is zero evidence it was terrorism.annie88 said:
It may very well not be terrorism, and I hope it's not, but to make that statement so quickly, just hours later, seems ill-advised.
It's funny how the media these days tend to amplify certain things and downplay others, depending on the outcome they seemingly want.
For example, the color of mass shooters seems to have become a very big thing.This FBI agent who is discounting terrorism at the Baltimore bridge (very quickly, I might add) was named Special Agent in Charge of the Baltimore Field Office just YESTERDAY
— Jordan Sather (@Jordan_Sather_) March 26, 2024
Suspicious? https://t.co/7kBZm1oBJk
Not every bad event is a deliberate act. Accidents do happen, even really big ones.
I like to phrase it myself thusly "never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by utter incompetence."
This may be something that is changed in the operations planning...CDUB98 said:
Assumption: This part of the channel requires no tugs because it is "easily" maneuverable for a ship this size. Closer into port, they probably pick up and drop off.
It's the cost benefit analysis...IslanderAg04 said:CDUB98 said:Which is how often?IslanderAg04 said:CDUB98 said:
Assumption: This part of the channel requires no tugs because it is "easily" maneuverable for a ship this size. Closer into port, they probably pick up and drop off.
Until they have power propulsion issues.
Not sure. But i would say this time was pretty catastrophic. Seems like a small security blanket for large vessels of this type. But as with most things currently, we are a reactive and not a proactive society.
The odds of this were probably VERY low. So, why spend the money on tugs to ensure it gets past the bridge.
However, now that they have seen the failure rate = 1, that view may change.
But...that adds cost to everything....
or the redesigned bridge has different support structure/pylonsUAS Ag said:This may be something that is changed in the operations planning...CDUB98 said:
Assumption: This part of the channel requires no tugs because it is "easily" maneuverable for a ship this size. Closer into port, they probably pick up and drop off.
it could have dolphins or starlings around the bases to protect from collisions/allisions/impacts.
I think you are onto something. If you play the video backwards at half-speed, while standing on your head, you can clearly see two polar bears body surfing off the port side of the ship.hph6203 said:
Has anyone considered that this is a result of climate change and maybe a big glacier slid off Greenland and fell into the ocean raising the water level and they didn't realize it?
Dolphins are pretty standard on newer bridge designs. Someone who knows more than me can comment on whether they would have saved a bridge that took a direct hit from fully loaded container ship.C@LAg said:
it could have dolphins or starlings around the bases to protect from collisions/allisions/impacts.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
My mariner daughter told me they had tugs, but they had been released because they were not needed for maneuverability at that point.
i also mentioned starlings, which are generally much more robust.YokelRidesAgain said:Dolphins are pretty standard on newer bridge designs. Someone who knows more than me can comment on whether they would have saved a bridge that took a direct hit from fully loaded container ship.C@LAg said:
it could have dolphins or starlings around the bases to protect from collisions/allisions/impacts.
those can be designed to deal with this level of mass/energy. for a cost.
Just heard a ship's captain interviewed and he said no kind of support can be totally safe from that much weight going 7 or 8 knots. The only thing that can stop it is hard ground.
And I found this link which calls the lost ships in WWII casualties.JB!98 said:No, I had to look it up. Was not being snarky. When I first read it, I thought is was a misspelling or auto correct issue. Learned a new word today. I did however, know about issues on a ship being called a casualty, so I got that going for me, which is good.C@LAg said:
not sure if you are being serious or snarky... but did you look the word up?
It is correct usage.
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/casualties-navy-and-coast-guard-ships.html
Common naval usage.
I know, I was in the US Navy a few decades ago.
taxpreparer said:
My mariner daughter told me they had tugs, but they had been released because they were not needed for maneuverability at that point.
This is shown in the video narration posted earlier from the guy that showed the harbor map with the ships course split screen with the crash video. Both tugs cut loose once the ship was in the proper channel.
Ok that makes sensetxags92 said:
There were two power outages based on the video. The smoke was seen after the first and was probably the result of the backup coming online. If the backup came up and then was knocked offline by whatever knocked the first one offline, that would explain the 2nd outage and the inability to avoid the bridge pier.
I'm surprised that it didn't...C@LAg said:or the redesigned bridge has different support structure/pylonsUAS Ag said:This may be something that is changed in the operations planning...CDUB98 said:
Assumption: This part of the channel requires no tugs because it is "easily" maneuverable for a ship this size. Closer into port, they probably pick up and drop off.
it could have dolphins or starlings around the bases to protect from collisions/allisions/impacts.
I know that the JFK here at NPI has stuff like that (not sure the name of what we have) to protect our main pier structures.
But, even so...There might be a push to include the tugs, too...
someone posted way up thread that they were not required prior to the early 1980s, and the bridge was completed in 1977.UAS Ag said:
I'm surprised that it didn't...
TexAgs will be an encyclopedia of naval terminology within a few weeks now...insulator_king said:And I found this link which calls the lost ships in WWII casualties.JB!98 said:No, I had to look it up. Was not being snarky. When I first read it, I thought is was a misspelling or auto correct issue. Learned a new word today. I did however, know about issues on a ship being called a casualty, so I got that going for me, which is good.C@LAg said:
not sure if you are being serious or snarky... but did you look the word up?
It is correct usage.
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/casualties-navy-and-coast-guard-ships.html
Common naval usage.
I know, I was in the US Navy a few decades ago.
There's nothing that could have saved that bridge. You plowed into it with the force of 20 Saturn V's. The amount of protection would require you to build an entire island.
Well, I have also read the entire Great Loop thread... https://texags.com/forums/34/topics/3387649UAS Ag said:TexAgs will be an encyclopedia of naval terminology within a few weeks now...insulator_king said:And I found this link which calls the lost ships in WWII casualties.JB!98 said:No, I had to look it up. Was not being snarky. When I first read it, I thought is was a misspelling or auto correct issue. Learned a new word today. I did however, know about issues on a ship being called a casualty, so I got that going for me, which is good.C@LAg said:
not sure if you are being serious or snarky... but did you look the word up?
It is correct usage.
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/casualties-navy-and-coast-guard-ships.html
Common naval usage.
I know, I was in the US Navy a few decades ago.
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
Joined:
May 6, 2014
Posts:
30,178
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm sure there have been plenty of examples, but with immediate family all around the corpus area I've never heard big tankers taking out the ferry landing, bridges, or plowing into the side of the jetties. So it's gotta be pretty rare, like a catastrophic airline crash.CDUB98 said:Which is how often?IslanderAg04 said:CDUB98 said:
Assumption: This part of the channel requires no tugs because it is "easily" maneuverable for a ship this size. Closer into port, they probably pick up and drop off.
Until they have power propulsion issues.
Person Not Capable of Pregnancy
Featured Stories
See All
2026 Mesquite (TX) Horn safety Markel Ford commits to Texas A&M
by Jason Howell
51:07
14h ago
21k
2:33
12h ago
1.7k
Texas A&M's coaching search must focus on finding the right man
by Olin Buchanan
11:31
16h ago
56k