Francis Keys bridge hit by ship. Bridge collapses, mass casualty event.

[Burgermeister]

12-24 months for NTSB to investigate this incident. But somehow they already know it wasn't terrorism and it was an accident.

 

[eagle1462010]

12-24 months for NTSB to investigate this incident. But somehow they already know it wasn't terrorism and it was an accident.

If it had a real black box there is no way there should be any time missing. The ones I put in long in Alaska had battery back up and tied into everything. If the ship sunk the box would float to the surface with a beacon and allow easy recovery.

Sounds kinda BS to me.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

The thing is that he know what he talks about! Otherwise he would not have the position that he has!

Was he in command of the Dali? No, of course not! Therefore, what he "thinks" he knows about what happened with the Dali is pure bs and even more so since he seems to be another fool ignoring the facts that have been released so far.

Redundancy works ONLY if the systems in place aren't affected. In the case of the Dali, the backup generator worked, but the ship's engines had a catastrophic mechanical failure that caused the initial blackout, meaning they would not restart.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

Will give us. The bridge hasn’t been built back better yet. That’s been held up by the MAGA Party.

Complete bullshit. No one is holding up anything to do with the Key bridge. Salvage operations started a few days ago. The accident happened at 1:29am Tuesday (last week). Spreading misinformation won't do you any good.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

Are tugboats always at the sides of these bigger ships? Stronger protection around the bridge supports have to be part of the solution.

No, tugs aren't required to escort ships all the way thru the harbor. I don't know of any bridge in the US that is capable of surviving a hit like the one that just happened.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

If it had a real black box there is no way there should be any time missing. The ones I put in long in Alaska had battery back up and tied into everything. If the ship sunk the box would float to the surface with a beacon and allow easy recovery.

Sounds kinda BS to me.

I've posted several replies in this thread about the two recorders on the ship. There is no "missing time". The first recorder was for video. That went out when the blackout happened. The other recorder is for voice and data - it has all the information and has a battery backup; no time is missing, everything was recorded.

 

[Sparker]

As fuel costs rise, global shipping becomes less profitable. Some shipping corporations went bankrupt. Ship maintenance may be the first corner cut in the remaining corporations. Government agencies and insurers may get more stringent with inspections for a while, but this will eventually be forgotten and then something else big and expensive will be wrecked again as global shipping becomes even more of a shoestring operation.

 

[Burgermeister]

I've posted several replies in this thread about the two recorders on the ship. There is no "missing time". The first recorder was for video. That went out when the blackout happened. The other recorder is for voice and data - it has all the information and has a battery backup; no time is missing, everything was recorded.

Video? What are you talking about? Everything I read says the sensor data stopped recording for two minutes. It's the audio recording that had a backup.

What Dali’s black box recorder tells us about Baltimore bridge allision

The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) shared data from Dali’s Voyage Data Recorder (VDR) on the minutes prior to contact with the Francis Scott Key Bridge.

www.seatrade-maritime.com

 

[konradv]

Complete bullshit. No one is holding up anything to do with the Key bridge. Salvage operations started a few days ago. The accident happened at 1:29am Tuesday (last week). Spreading misinformation won't do you any good.

I’m talking infrastructure in general. MAGA doesn’t do anything that really matters, preferring to spend their time on phony impeachments and running their own internal civil war.

 

[Donald H]

In a straight line with tugs on either side, and the ship at a safe speed encase engine failure happens, then it's not like the tugs would be attempting to stop or turn sharply the huge behemoth, but only to nudge it in an attempt to guide it as it slows down. Water is slick remember.. The tugs push behemoths around all the time in the ports, and with amazing success. Of course the adjustments in speed etc have to be made by the pilot's aboard the behemoths in order to accomodate the tugs that are doing a job for them.

Pocedures won't be changed to suit your recommendations beagle. They're designed to work most efficiently the way they are. There was no pilot error on the bridge.

It's turning out to be that the bridge lacked structures near or around the bridge's supports to prevent such accidents. That was the negligence that caused the catastrophe. That and the possibility of foul play by an enemy, which hasn't been determined yet.

The 5-10 degrees course change to starboard has not been answered to so far. That could be suspicious!

 

[Donald H]

And why do you think that? The Dali was traveling at 8kts, on the correct heading, exactly where it was supposed to be in the outbound shipping lane.

All the tugs would have had to do is make sure it kept doing what it was already doing. For another half-mile till it cleared the bridge. No turns, no maneuvering. Just stay the course, that's all.

I posted the story to illustrate that the notion the tugs cannot operate against ship going more than 3 kts. is false. They do it every day.

Proper procedure was followed and it won't be changed to suit you imagination. The negligence is beinig determined to be on the part of the city of Baltimore, on not having adequate protection for the bridge supports.

So far barring a determination of foul play again.

 

[Donald H]

Been a long time ago for me but an LHD got pushed around by 4 and is juat as big as that ship.

Write a letter to the authorities who have established proper procedures, telling them of your changes!

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

I’m talking infrastructure in general. MAGA doesn’t do anything that really matters, preferring to spend their time on phony impeachments and running their own internal civil war.

Again, there isn't anyone trying to halt clearing the channel or trying to stop plans for rebuilding the bridge. Trying to use the Key Bridge as an example of one political party causing problems isn't a good idea.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

Pocedures won't be changed to suit your recommendations beagle. They're designed to work most efficiently the way they are. There was no pilot error on the bridge.

It's turning out to be that the bridge lacked structures near or around the bridge's supports to prevent such accidents. That was the negligence that caused the catastrophe. That and the possibility of foul play by an enemy, which hasn't been determined yet.

The 5-10 degrees course change to starboard has not been answered to so far. That could be suspicious!

The bridge opened in 1977. It took 5 years to build, not including the design stage. At the time it was built, it was up to code. To say it lacked structures to prevent accidents is not exactly correct. The supports had caissons that were underwater and extended out along with dolphins. It was designed for ships that existed at that time. In the 1970's, the ships used today weren't thought of or even imagined.

Foul play = Why even go there? There is no evidence.

 

[Donald H]

The bridge opened in 1977. It took 5 years to build, not including the design stage. At the time it was built, it was up to code. To say it lacked structures to prevent accidents is not exactly correct. The supports had caissons that were underwater and extended out along with dolphins. It was designed for ships that existed at that time. In the 1970's, the ships used today weren't thought of or even imagined.

Yes I understand that is correct. But information is coming out that other bridges of the same type and that were vulnerable, have been upgraded to suit the threat by larger ships.

Foul play = Why even go there? There is no evidence.

I don't form suspicions based on a lack of evidence. The second and larger course change illustrated by your depiction of the course made good is still unexplained. It likely will be explained but if not then it will continue to be suspicious.

Keep an open mind and don't allow yourself to be influenced by the flow of conclusions that don't seem to be correct conclusions.

Not to suggest getting hung up on accepting the nonsense being offered by some of the crazies. I mention that because you seem to be staying objective and not making any wild guesses.

 

[para bellum]

Proper procedure was followed and it won't be changed to suit you imagination. The negligence is beinig determined to be on the part of the city of Baltimore, on not having adequate protection for the bridge supports.

So far barring a determination of foul play again.

Oh just stop it. The City of Baltimore is not asking me what the "proper procedure" is, and I am not telling them what to do.

I noted early in this thread that after the Exxon Valdez, they changed the rules to require tug escorts in inside waters. They may make that change now for container ships, or not. It's not in my control.

No one has made any determination about negligence, and you are irresponsible for saying it. And there has been no suggestion of foul play either.

There was no "second and larger" course change, and the AIS track does not depict one. Repeating the same lie over and over will not make it true.

The video is an optical illusion. The ship was never traveling left to right- it was approaching the bridge at nearly 90 degrees, the CCTV camera angle is deceptive. The ship is wedged under the bridge at roughly the same angle it hit. I doubt the channel is dredged all the way to the supports, and it's possible the ship grounded before it actually hit the bridge proper. If that is the case, the current will swing the stern a little. That movement happened much more slowly than the sped up video suggests.

 

[Donald H]

Oh just stop it. The City of Baltimore is not asking me what the "proper procedure" is, and I am not telling them what to do.

I noted early in this thread that after the Exxon Valdez, they changed the rules to require tug escorts in inside waters. They may make that change now for container ships, or not. It's not in my control.

Yes, and the change in rules didn't effect the correct procedure required for this ship.

No one has made any determination about negligence, and you are irresponsible for saying it. And there has been no suggestion of foul play either.

No, there are many engineers suggesting that upgrades are needed to protect the vulnerable bridges of this type.

There was no "second and larger" course change, and the AIS track does not depict one. Repeating the same lie over and over will not make it true.

There were two course changes. The first one coincided with engine startup. The second on remains unanswered by the investigations, and could be suspicious.

And it could also be that the two aren't acknowledged by you for the same reason so many can never accept the truth on what caused the towers to fall on 911. We'll get to that as the eividence surfaces.

The video is an optical illusion. The ship was never traveling left to right- it was approaching the bridge at nearly 90 degrees, the CCTV camera angle is deceptive. The ship is wedged under the bridge at the same angle it hit.

Agreed!

 

[para bellum]

Yes, and the change in rules didn't effect the correct procedure required for this ship.

No one is saying it did. Any other strawmen you want to trot out?

No, there are many engineers suggesting that upgrades are needed to protect the vulnerable bridges of this type.

There are things that can be done to increase the protection, no one is claiming otherwise. See the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Florida for example.

There were two course changes. The first one coincided with engine startup. The second on remains unanswered by the investigations, and could be suspicious.

There is only the deviation when the ship lost power. There is no evidence that the engine was ever restarted, that is purely speculation. The engine cannot be started without first getting the auxiliaries going.

And it could also be that the two aren't acknowledged by you for the same reason so many can never accept the truth on what caused the towers to fall on 911. We'll get to that as the eividence surfaces.

Oh jesus, leave the 9/11 conspiracies out of this thread.

 

[MarcATL]

When the lights went out the first time, that was the blackout. When you saw the lights come back on, that was the emergency generators kicking in. The ship's engines did not restart.

They have no power, no steering, no rudder control, no thrusters, etc. Knowing the ship was drifting towards the bridge support, the pilot told the crew to drop the anchor on the left side of the ship. In normal circumstances, that would have "pulled" the bow of the ship to the left. There just wasn't enough time and distance for it to work like they hoped.

The ship was drifting to the right because of the river current and wind.

The captain, in this case, is a white man, no talk of incompetence or DEI or any other such nonsense.

Everything being the same, but w/a Black captain, or woman captain, does anyone think it'd be the same response from the usual suspects?

 

[Donald H]

Oh jesus, leave the 9/11 conspiracies out of this thread.

The possibility of foul play can't be ignored. Or at least, I won't be ignoring it. Laser generated images and blaming the Martians just won't do it this time.

The second course change (or the only one in your opinion) caused the ship's course to perfectly align with the target.