bonfarr said:one safe place said:Informative video, thanks for posting.MAROON said:
MV Dali Hitting Key Bridge in Baltimore - Track and Video Analysis (youtube.com)
pretty good video and analysis
For the experts on the thread, when he said the smoke seen could be indicative of the ship beginning to back down, what does that phrase mean?
Fall92 said:
PS- no one should be surprised when the vessel owner files a limitation (of liability) action later today in Maryland federal court.
Is dropping anchor an option (I know next to nothing about ships)?Sea Speed said:bonfarr said:one safe place said:Informative video, thanks for posting.MAROON said:
MV Dali Hitting Key Bridge in Baltimore - Track and Video Analysis (youtube.com)
pretty good video and analysis
For the experts on the thread, when he said the smoke seen could be indicative of the ship beginning to back down, what does that phrase mean?
Back down means operating the engines astern. Trying to slow down. They are wildly inefficient at this unless they were controllable pitch, which I doubt.
i am sure a whole bunch of anchors were dropped in the crews pants as they saw the bridge looming above.stetson said:
Is dropping anchor an option (I know next to nothing about ships)?
Looks like they tried everything, including broadcasting a timely warning.one safe place said:I am an expert on jon boats and kayaks only! I wondered the same thing you did when I heard it, twice I think. In my inexperienced mind, I thought maybe they had reversed the engines to try and slow the ship and the smoke was the running of the engines at full throttle. I realize they had no time, nor did they have the distance, with which to make the ship go in reverse, but I figured it was to try and slow the forward speed of the ship. They said on this video, or perhaps another, that they had dropped the port side anchor.bonfarr said:one safe place said:Informative video, thanks for posting.MAROON said:
MV Dali Hitting Key Bridge in Baltimore - Track and Video Analysis (youtube.com)
pretty good video and analysis
For the experts on the thread, when he said the smoke seen could be indicative of the ship beginning to back down, what does that phrase mean?
Ag_07 said:
This kind of incident reminds me of the Swiss cheese model.
There are tons of fail safe protocols and checks and balances that are in place to prevent catastrophic events like this but when each of those protocols aren't followed it all lines up and results in worse case scenarios like this.
Im Gipper said:
Lara Logan is really pushing cyber attack theory.
Is she credible?
If you have time and space, sure. But it's nearly worthless in a situation like this.stetson said:Is dropping anchor an option (I know next to nothing about ships)?Sea Speed said:bonfarr said:one safe place said:Informative video, thanks for posting.MAROON said:
MV Dali Hitting Key Bridge in Baltimore - Track and Video Analysis (youtube.com)
pretty good video and analysis
For the experts on the thread, when he said the smoke seen could be indicative of the ship beginning to back down, what does that phrase mean?
Back down means operating the engines astern. Trying to slow down. They are wildly inefficient at this unless they were controllable pitch, which I doubt.
So a couple fuel switch over questions..Stat Monitor Repairman said:
As somebody already mentioned above, US environmental regulations have required that ships burn ULSD or ultra low sulfur diesel while inport.
Typically ships run HFO / Bunker fuel all the time. But when they go into a US port they are required to switch fuel supply to ULSD.
When you are operating ships systems, switching anything related to fuel supply can cause problems due to mechanical failure or human error.
This was is a known risk when environmental regulators decided it was a good idea to require ships to switch fuel while underway.
Doing so is the opposite of good seamanship which dictates if it's working, don't mess with it unless you have to. This is especially true when you talking about jockeying with fuel or fuel systems while underway. It doesn't make sense to mess with fuel systems onboard a ship unnecessarily.
Is this what happened here? We don't know but it's within the realm of possibility.
That's another factor the engineers were probably dealing with here. Extreme changes in engine orders in a maneuvering or emergency situation, will almost always cause a bunch of random alarms to go off the control room, and typically all at the same time because multiple systems are now operating out of parameter.Sea Speed said:
The engines also do not like to go from stop to full ahead/astern either. Even when in a maneuvering situation the captain will slowly increase engine orders to allow the engine to catch up to the engine order. Obviously in extremis your going to give her everything, but the engines always not respond favorably.
they did an interview with a guy who lives on one side, who has a brother that lives on the other. for what used to be a 10 minute drive to visit his brother, it will now be a 2+ hour drive.YouBet said:
Now that I have seen a bird's eye view of it, that is a long ass bridge. That is going to be a traffic nightmare.
Lawd.
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
In almost all cases in a ship of this size going from ahead to astern propulsion means the rotation of the shaft must come to a complete stop and reverse. This typically takes some amount of time. It's not instantaneous like on smaller vessels. There would be a significant lag in going from ahead to astern, then the time it takes for the shaft to begin turning and provide any significant power output. In the meantime the ship is moving forward under its own momentum.
So if they managed to get the engine stopped, resume power astern and drop anchor, then it seems like they did everything they could conceivably do here to minimize an imminent impact.
The bridge will have 4 or 5 microphones positioned throughout. Vessel traffic will record all radio traffic from the land side which we may hear at some point later this week. The vessels data recorder will record all throttle control and steering inputs so theoretically there here will be no real question as to what happened here.
Learn something new everyday on TexAgs!Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Looking at this video it's possible they tried to back down when an allision was imminent. The amount of smoke seems consistent with the main engine and not necessarily an emergency generator starting up or the main generators starting back up which would be way less smoke, imo.
The switch from bunker to ULSD typically happens offshore and not when in restricted waters. If I recall California initially started all this and it was an issue for ships coming into Long Beach switching to ULSD ad some amount of miles offshore.fullback44 said:So a couple fuel switch over questions..Stat Monitor Repairman said:
As somebody already mentioned above, US environmental regulations have required that ships burn ULSD or ultra low sulfur diesel while inport.
Typically ships run HFO / Bunker fuel all the time. But when they go into a US port they are required to switch fuel supply to ULSD.
When you are operating ships systems, switching anything related to fuel supply can cause problems due to mechanical failure or human error.
This was is a known risk when environmental regulators decided it was a good idea to require ships to switch fuel while underway.
Doing so is the opposite of good seamanship which dictates if it's working, don't mess with it unless you have to. This is especially true when you talking about jockeying with fuel or fuel systems while underway. It doesn't make sense to mess with fuel systems onboard a ship unnecessarily.
Is this what happened here? We don't know but it's within the realm of possibility.
Where or how far outside of Port are you require to switch from HFO (fuel oil) to diesel (ULSD) ? I thought that was quite a ways from the actual port or ship channel? So if problems happened it would happen out at sea somewhat?
When you do switch from HFO to diesel, are there typically still pre-heaters being used for the diesel? I know you wouldn't necessarily need them for running ULSD but you could have "chunks or globs" of fuel oil peel off the pipe walls and cause issues in your using fuel strainers.
I say this because we have seen fuel problems in utility power plants that would switch from running old thick junky fuel oil and then run diesel behind it just to clean out all the lines. When they would do this they would pull any strainers because they pretty much knew chunks or globs of fuel oil would be peeling off the walls of the piping …. The diesel was used to clean the pipes basically when the line pressure would buildup from running thick fuel oil for too long.
Just curious how this works on a ship and if the fuel strainers are not cleaned or maintained properly it could cause possible issues ?
bonfarr said:Stat Monitor Repairman said:
In almost all cases in a ship of this size going from ahead to astern propulsion means the rotation of the shaft must come to a complete stop and reverse. This typically takes some amount of time. It's not instantaneous like on smaller vessels. There would be a significant lag in going from ahead to astern, then the time it takes for the shaft to begin turning and provide any significant power output. In the meantime the ship is moving forward under its own momentum.
So if they managed to get the engine stopped, resume power astern and drop anchor, then it seems like they did everything they could conceivably do here to minimize an imminent impact.
The bridge will have 4 or 5 microphones positioned throughout. Vessel traffic will record all radio traffic from the land side which we may hear at some point later this week. The vessels data recorder will record all throttle control and steering inputs so theoretically there here will be no real question as to what happened here.
If this ship was equipped with transverse thrusters like a lot of the modern cruise ships would they have been able to kick those on in an emergency to provide enough course change to avoid collision or is that container ship just so damn big that nothing would hav really helped?
His handlers are marxists. There is no government money he won't launder...I mean spend.Clavell said:
How do you know it is an elections year?
Thats another issue. Bow thrusters draw a huge amount of electrical power. So you could conceive of a situation where they tried to use bow thrusters in an emergency and tripped the main power offline.bonfarr said:If this ship was equipped with transverse thrusters like a lot of the modern cruise ships would they have been able to kick those on in an emergency to provide enough course change to avoid collision or is that container ship just so damn big that nothing would hav really helped?Stat Monitor Repairman said:
In almost all cases in a ship of this size going from ahead to astern propulsion means the rotation of the shaft must come to a complete stop and reverse. This typically takes some amount of time. It's not instantaneous like on smaller vessels. There would be a significant lag in going from ahead to astern, then the time it takes for the shaft to begin turning and provide any significant power output. In the meantime the ship is moving forward under its own momentum.
So if they managed to get the engine stopped, resume power astern and drop anchor, then it seems like they did everything they could conceivably do here to minimize an imminent impact.
The bridge will have 4 or 5 microphones positioned throughout. Vessel traffic will record all radio traffic from the land side which we may hear at some point later this week. The vessels data recorder will record all throttle control and steering inputs so theoretically there here will be no real question as to what happened here.