BOOM. New Close Up Video Shows Dali Maneuvering into Position, Stopping, Ramming Column Under Power

[para bellum]

If the ship as reported was moving at 9 kts. when in the area of the bridge do they keep that speed up? I did not see lights from the ship aimed at the Bridge. So question how the ship knows it's exact position? I expect the answer is GPS.

GPS, plotter, radar, Mk1 eyeball.

 

[Foxfyre]

I see that now with a link I found... The Captain acted as fast as he could have... now they must find out what caused the power to stop... so it doesn't happen again...

As humans we do keep learning from our mistakes and failures. But being the innovative and creative creatures that we are, we seem to keep finding new ways to make mistakes and screw things up.

Edison is said to have once said (no doubt paraphrased if he actually said it): "I didn't fail 10,000 times to make a light bulb that worked. I learned 10,000 ways that wouldn't work."

 

[para bellum]

OK, but it hit the Bridge. We all know all about that. And we know the ship had at least a pilot. A pilot who would know that path backwards and forward. It should not have hit the bridge. Even aside from the anchor condition, it's path was at the Bridge. Why? I recall seeing a video of it turning into the bridge. Again, what kind of pilot hits bridges?

The ship under power will use a little right hand trim on the rudder to maintain a straight course. This is to counteract a tendency to turn to port that is caused by the propwash. Think in terms of adverse yaw.

So when the power is lost, the propwash stops pushing the stern to the stbd, the rudder is locked in that position until hydraulics are restored. The ship drifts off course in the stbd. direction.

Pardon my crappy markup but this is why it works that way.

 

[Robert W]

The ship under power will use a little right hand trim on the rudder to maintain a straight course. This is to counteract a tendency to turn to port that is caused by the propwash. Think in terms of adverse yaw.

So when the power is lost, the propwash stops pushing the stern to the stbd, the rudder is locked in that position until hydraulics are restored. The ship drifts off course in the stbd. direction.

Pardon my crappy markup but this is why it works that way.

View attachment 926768

Thanks a lot. I understand how rudders work and why in particular conditions we pilots of airplanes use right rudder to overcome the torque of the spinning prop. All I wish for is that this accident did not ever happen. I have driven over "I-95 at Baltimore so know the harbor partly. Some want to know why piers are not stronger. Some of them actually are. But harbors vary so it is possible a particular harbor does not need stronger piers.

 

[para bellum]

Thanks a lot. I understand how rudders work and why in particular conditions we pilots of airplanes use right rudder to overcome the torque of the spinning prop. All I wish for is that this accident did not ever happen. I have driven over "I-95 at Baltimore so know the harbor partly. Some want to know why piers are not stronger. Some of them actually are. But harbors vary so it is possible a particular harbor does not need stronger piers.

I was just trying to illustrate that the pilot wasn't turning towards the bridge- the ship turned because propulsion was lost, and they had no helm to make a correction.

Bridges do get hit occasionally. This one was hit once before, in 1980 by a smaller ship and the damage was superficial. There is always an element of risk with things mechanical...

 

[Robert W]

I was just trying to illustrate that the pilot wasn't turning towards the bridge- the ship turned because propulsion was lost, and they had no helm to make a correction.

Bridges do get hit occasionally. This one was hit once before, in 1980 by a smaller ship and the damage was superficial. There is always an element of risk with things mechanical...

I realize that after you explained it.

 

[luiza]

I can't believe that there is no manual anchor drop procedure...
There is on every Navy vessel I've ever been on...
In a 50 foot deep bay that would have stopped that ship cold...

It was arranged for it not to be able to stop .
That is precisely why it was a successful and brilliant False Flag .

And having Cognitively Rigid people argue that it was an accident is ironic and sad .
As Lara Logan has reported , not a single Intel contact privately even thinks that this was an accident.

 

[Markle]

Dali pilot rushed to drop anchor and pull ship's rudder

Clay Diamond, executive director of the American Pilots Association, said to CNN that the pilot quickly handed out a string of orders to try to prevent the catastrophe.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I convinced the Captain did everything he could to stop that ship... my question is why was it losing power?...

One theory I've seen in two places is contaminated fuel. They would know that by now, so I guess it did not turn out to be an issue.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Narrative is ship drifted after power loss, power went on and off, efforts to correct course failed. Bullshit. That boat drifted toward target after power loss, power goes back on and rudders right, power off again drift, stops, then powers on when boat aimed precisely at target, rams column. No accident. Distant version on media shows none of this maneuvering. Looks like a ships navigation system cyber attack.

They warned you people back in the 60s about doing acid.

 

[MisterBeale]

I convinced the Captain did everything he could to stop that ship... my question is why was it losing power?...

One theory I've seen in two places is contaminated fuel. They would know that by now, so I guess it did not turn out to be an issue.

If there is any conspiracy at all? I'd place my bets on this being a case of the captain, first mate, and crew, simply being loaded, like that Exxon Valdez incident.

I mean. . . why the hell didn't the authorities in the U.S., INSIST, the second this happened, to alcohol and drug testing them all? This is the only way the city/state could bring legal/liability suits against the shipping company?

When and why are corporations profits more important than the taxpayers? It seems, the taxpayers are now sheep, to be slaughtered. .. and since the pandemic, quite literally.



All of this twitter/media alt conspiracy talk is meant to distract everyone from the real issue IMO.

. . . that is, global corporations getting away with ripping off the tax payers & making them pick up the tab, for CEO's continually cutting costs and royally fucking things up in an effort to chase profits.

What We Know About the Crew on the Ship That Hit the Baltimore Bridge​

One crew member of the Dali received stitches, then returned to the ship. It’s not clear how long they’ll have to remain on board.

What We Know About the Crew on the Ship That Hit the Baltimore Bridge

One crew member of the Dali received stitches, then returned to the ship. It’s not clear how long they’ll have to remain on board.

web.archive.org

What We Know About the Crew on the Ship That Hit the Baltimore Bridge

One crew member of the Dali received stitches, then returned to the ship. It’s not clear how long they’ll have to remain on board.

www.nytimes.com

" . . . The ship, owned by the Singapore-based Grace Ocean Private Ltd., had just embarked on a 27-day voyage to Singapore when it struck the bridge early Tuesday morning. Darrell Wilson, a spokesman for Synergy Marine, said on Thursday he did not know when crew members would leave the ship.

Josh Messick, a chaplain and the executive director of the Baltimore International Seafarers’ Center, a religious nonprofit that seeks to protect the rights of mariners, said the crew did not have reliable internet access. His organization was working to deliver Wi-Fi access and SIM cards so they could reach family members back home, he said.

Large container ships like the Dali typically have about 20 crew members, a figure that has come down over the years as operators have sought to cut labor costs. Larger shipping companies may recruit workers from countries like India and the Philippines, where looser labor laws enable them to pay cheaper wages.

Crews’ time at sea can vary, but some voyages are now taking longer than usual: Attacks on ships by the Houthi rebel group in Yemen in the Red Sea have caused lengthy detours away from the Suez Canal, disrupting global shipping across the globe.
Typically, a container ship crew includes the captain, an officer in charge of securing the cargo, sailors assigned to the engines and handling the ship's myriad systems, and stewards who handle tasks like cooking and laundry.

John Konrad, a licensed container ship captain and the editor of gCaptain.com, a shipping industry news site, said every container ship is “unique and has its idiosyncrasies.” It’s normal for crew members to stay on damaged ships because the captain is still in command, and crew members must make sure the crashed vessel — and any potentially hazardous goods — does not pose a further danger.

“They’re making sure the ship doesn’t catch on fire,” Mr. Konrad said in an interview, adding that the crew must also remain to comply with the National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation.

On Wednesday, Jennifer Homendy, the chair of the N.T.S.B., said the ship’s cooks were working when she boarded the ship. “It smelled very good, and I was very hungry,” she said."

IOW? No sobriety tests. .. no drug tests. Nothing to find out if the crew is/was liable for fucking around and . . . ????
(This seems to be industry standard TBH)

Cargo Ship Company In Bridge Disaster SILENCED Whistleblowers​

​

IOW? A TOTAL FAIL!

 

[Donald H]

Each ship that sails out of a US port is required to have a local pilot guide it out of port. One who does indeed know the path forward and backward. It's maritime law in this country.

However, when you have a complete loss of power on a ship the size of the Chrysler Building in NYC that is traveling at 8 knots heading for a bridge, a ship like that doesn't turn or stop on a dime. It turned into the bridge because it lost power, they dropped the anchor and threw the rudder to port (I think). Between the tide current and inertia, it overran that bridge abutment.

If they 'threw the rudder to Port', then we need a reason why the ship took a hard turn to Starboard which lined it's bow up precisely with the bridge supports.

Somebody speculates that the Port anchor caught and held? That really doesn't work for this situation.
The current in that harbour wasn't any faster than about 1.5 knots and it was flowing with the ship. That doesn't work either.
The wind was relatively calm and that doesn't work either.

We need a rational discussiion here, without spamming by some of you who seem to want to claim it was all innocent and explainable. It isn't!

 

[Donald H]

If there is any conspiracy at all? I'd place my bets on this being a case of the captain, first mate, and crew, simply being loaded, like that Exxon Valdez incident.

Your theory on alcohol is possible but it's highly unlikely and you're only offering it as spamming. The Pilots are not part of the ships' crew and would go aboard shortly before the ship departed.

 

[Donald H]

The ship under power will use a little right hand trim on the rudder to maintain a straight course. This is to counteract a tendency to turn to port that is caused by the propwash. Think in terms of adverse yaw.

So when the power is lost, the propwash stops pushing the stern to the stbd, the rudder is locked in that position until hydraulics are restored. The ship drifts off course in the stbd. direction.

Pardon my crappy markup but this is why it works that way.

View attachment 926768

Far, far too insignificant to cause the abrupt course change to starboard that we've witnessed.

But good for you for guessing, as long as your guesses don't have a hidden purpose.

You may be able to argue that the ship's rudder was set for a starboard correction before the ship lost power. However, you would have to provide a sensible reason why that would be true. The opposite is much more likely.

The momentum of the ship as shown in the video indicates hard starboard rudder applied. That doesn't mean that was a response from the wheel.

It could mean that there was foul play between the wheel and the rudder, if the control system allows that.

 

[Donald H]

It was arranged for it not to be able to stop .
That is precisely why it was a successful and brilliant False Flag .

And having Cognitively Rigid people argue that it was an accident is ironic and sad .
As Lara Logan has reported , not a single Intel contact privately even thinks that this was an accident.

There's no doubt that Para bellum's arguments are biased toward finding an explanation that can rule out foul play!

Why he needs to do that is a mystery but a possible explanation could be that the same train of thought that created Martians or laser generated images for the 911 mishap could be at work.

 

[para bellum]

There's no doubt that Para bellum's arguments are biased toward finding an explanation that can rule out foul play!

Why he needs to do that is a mystery but a possible explanation could be that the same train of thought that created Martians or laser generated images for the 911 mishap could be at work.

No you fucking moron, I am looking at the facts only. I have no interest in your boneheaded theories.

The ship never dropped off AIS. Those heading changes are constant due to the rudder position. That is the true data. It does not matter what you think you see.

Far, far too insignificant to cause the abrupt course change to starboard that we've witnessed.

But good for you for guessing, as long as your guesses don't have a hidden purpose.

You may be able to argue that the ship's rudder was set for a starboard correction before the ship lost power. However, you would have to provide a sensible reason why that would be true. The opposite is much more likely.

There was no abrupt course change, the AIS confirms that.

The propwash is not insignificant, and anyone who runs single-screw boats learns how to "walk" the stern on the wheel when maneuvering at slow speeds. It is HOW you get the boat in and away from the dock with a single-screw boat.

If you don't know how to do it, you will look like a fool trying to dock your boat...

The "sensible reason" is the right hand rotation of the propeller, you clueless fucking idiot.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

If they 'threw the rudder to Port', then we need a reason why the ship took a hard turn to Starboard which lined it's bow up precisely with the bridge supports.

Somebody speculates that the Port anchor caught and held? That really doesn't work for this situation.
The current in that harbour wasn't any faster than about 1.5 knots and it was flowing with the ship. That doesn't work either.
The wind was relatively calm and that doesn't work either.

We need a rational discussiion here, without spamming by some of you who seem to want to claim it was all innocent and explainable. It isn't!

I thought we were having a rational discussion. You seem to want to find an alternate explanation. As if you're sure there was nefarious dealings going on here. As if the ship rammed the bridge on purpose. We know the ship lost power and never gained it back.
That makes it largely a dead stick, at the mercy of the tide and inertia. You don't just hit the brakes. This isn't a car where small movements can have major consequences.

 

[Donald H]

I thought we were having a rational discussion. You seem to want to find an alternate explanation. As if you're sure there was nefarious dealings going on here. As if the ship rammed the bridge on purpose. We know the ship lost power and never gained it back.
That makes it largely a dead stick, at the mercy of the tide and inertia. You don't just hit the brakes. This isn't a car where small movements can have major consequences.

I don't need to quote the spamming and vicious insults of those who need to deny the facts. If you at least understand that ships don't stop like your car, you may be able to contribute something.

If you're suggesting that the ship didn't gain back power, then you're not keeping up and so you're mostly interested in spamming and offering excuses similar to the Martians on 911.

 

[para bellum]

I thought we were having a rational discussion.

You will not get a rational discussion from that one.

He's a one-trick pony...

 

[westwall]

I can't believe that there is no manual anchor drop procedure...
There is on every Navy vessel I've ever been on...
In a 50 foot deep bay that would have stopped that ship cold...

A report I saw said the anchor dragged, but I ee no evidence that it was ever dropped.

 

[Donald H]

You will not get a rational discussion from that one.

He's a one-trick pony...

Somewhat less important to note is that the lay of the anchor chain indicates that the Port anchor didn't slow the ship's charge directly at the bridge's critical supports.