Advertisement
Could Tugboats Have Helped Avert the Bridge Collapse?
Two 5,000-horsepower tugs, which only minutes earlier had helped guide the ship out of its berth at the Port of Baltimore and peeled off, quickly turned back and raced toward the Dali. But it was too late.
Menu
Front Page Breaking News Comments Flagged Comments Recently Flagged User Blogs Write a Blog Entry Create a Poll Edit Account Weekly Digest Stats Page RSS Feed Back Page
Subscriptions
Read the Retort using RSS.
RSS Feed
Author Info
REDIAL
Joined 2009/01/04Visited 2024/04/30
Status: user
MORE STORIES
Democrats Would Save Speaker Johnson from Being Ousted (5 comments) ...
An El Nino-less summer is coming. (1 comments) ...
Pentagon to 'Rush' Patriot Missiles to Ukraine (10 comments) ...
Houthis damage oil tanker, shoot down US drone (1 comments) ...
Baltimore Sues Owner and Manager of 'unseaworthy' Dali (3 comments) ...
Alternate links: Google News | Twitter
Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.
Hindsight is 20/20.
After the fact, everyone is an expert.
#1 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-03-31 09:37 AM | Reply
The shipping company should have to pay for the bridge replacement, and only then can they can bitch about the costs of tugs.
#2 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-03-31 04:50 PM | Reply
You don't implement solutions for problems that rarely occur.
It has been determined extended use of tugboats would just be a waste and unnecessary expense.
You take your available resources and put them where you're most likely to need them.
It is unreasonable to think we will have solutions for every contingency and that every disaster can be diverted.
We need to be focused on what caused the loss of propulsion.
#3 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-03-31 08:08 PM | Reply
That's easy... the engine stopped when the electrical power failed.
#4 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-03-31 08:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1
@#3 ... It has been determined extended use of tugboats would just be a waste and unnecessary expense. ...
Great. "It has been determined." I bow to that determination. Not.
So, there should be links your alias can post to substantiate that assertion. I mean, if it has been determined, there should be links to that effect?
Should I wait to see your alias post those links?
Or will it, as the usual, just skulk away?
Yer up...
#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-03-31 08:20 PM | Reply
As the article points out, having a pair of tugs escorting every ship would be a traffic and logistical nightmare. In this case, tugs were used as usual to assist the ship getting out of the wharf area and into the main channel.
It's debatable whether or not (likely not) a tug would have been able to correct the ship's course after it lost steerageway.
#6 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-03-31 08:29 PM | Reply
@#1 ... Hindsight is 20/20.
After the fact, everyone is an expert. ...
I agree.
But hindsight (or what I used to call the meeting to discuss how things went after a software release, "post mortem") is important.
That post-catastrophe expertise is important in determining how to prevent such occurrences in the future.
#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-03-31 09:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1
Lamp,
"just skulk away"
You're wasting your time trying to bait me.
#8 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-03-31 09:30 PM | Reply
@#6 ... As the article points out, having a pair of tugs escorting every ship would be a traffic and logistical nightmare. ...
... and the current situation is not a logistical nightmare?
#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-03-31 09:30 PM | Reply
@#8 ... You're wasting your time trying to bait me. ...
You seem to be attributing something to me that I have not done.
#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-03-31 09:32 PM | Reply
"You seem to be attributing something to me that I have not done."
"Seem" being the operative word.
#11 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-03-31 09:45 PM | Reply
Obviously it is. A week ago it was not. That's kind of the game.
Pilots and tugboat people would like tugs alongside all the time everywhere. Ship owners would like to see them never.
The only way to sort it out is through regulations and mandates, and no one is going to stick their dick in that without an incentive.
Will this be an incentive? Stay tuned!
#12 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-03-31 09:49 PM | Reply
@#11 ... "Seem" being the operative word. ...
Yup.
So, what else yer got?
#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-03-31 09:53 PM | Reply
@#12 ... Obviously it is. A week ago it was not. That's kind of the game.
Pilots and tugboat people would like tugs alongside all the time everywhere. Ship owners would like to see them never. ...
Yeah.
I agree it is a trade-off.
But within that trade-off discussion needs to be things like .... oh, I don't know ... maybe an errant ship destroys a critical bridge? A bridge that did not have protection from such an event. (why that protection wasn't there is a whole different after-the-fact topic)
That lack of protection for the bridge should enable more stringent safety practices. But those protections did not seem to be there.
So, maybe, with that knowledge, a safety plan could be devised for this particular quite critical harbor, a plan that reduces the probability of an errant ship destroying a critical thoroughfare bridge and disabling a critical harbor..
#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-03-31 10:03 PM | Reply
a safety plan could be devised for this particular quite critical harbor
And all the other ones. I read yesterday the the current required bridge maintenance bill in the US is $125 Billion. Where to start?
California's Legislature passed a bill requiring tug escorts for chemical tanker ships in San Francisco Bay, but it was vetoed.
A really good step would be to not let unseaworthy ships leave the dock. It will be interesting to see what the NTSB finds in that regard.
#15 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-03-31 10:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1
@#15 ... I read yesterday the the current required bridge maintenance bill in the US is $125 Billion. Where to start? ...
So, the question seems to become, when to go on a bridge, do you hope you will be able to leave that bridge?
Am I reading this incorrectly?
Mianus River Bridge Collapses (2018) connecticuthistory.org
... Not long after midnight on June 28, 1983, a section of the Mianus River Bridge on I-95 in Cos Cob collapsed. Within seconds, two tractor-trailer trucks and two passenger cars plunged into the river. Three people were killed and three injured. The immediate concern was rescue and safety. Decisions had to be made quickly and not necessarily in accordance with training. For example, a volunteer firefighter and emergency medical technician (EMT) volunteer described moving a girl trapped in a car without the use of a backboard: "If we delayed there could have been a bigger problem with an explosion or fire. You have those diesel trucks with hundreds of gallons of fuel." A Connecticut state trooper, the first official to arrive at the accident scene, praised the cooperation of the agencies. Stamford and Greenwich Marine Police and the Coast Guard were called; Greenwich firefighters and the Cos Cob firehouse ambulance responded; Greenwich police blocked off the turnpike; the National Guard came with helicopters. Ordinary citizens stepped forward that night. Everyone worked at a feverish pace to save lives and minimize the extent of the disaster. One unnamed hero, a man journeying home to Atlanta with his wife, had, upon spotting the collapse, exited his car and waved traffic to a stop. His quick action likely prevented more vehicles from plunging off the bridge. ...
The immediate concern was rescue and safety. Decisions had to be made quickly and not necessarily in accordance with training. For example, a volunteer firefighter and emergency medical technician (EMT) volunteer described moving a girl trapped in a car without the use of a backboard: "If we delayed there could have been a bigger problem with an explosion or fire. You have those diesel trucks with hundreds of gallons of fuel."
A Connecticut state trooper, the first official to arrive at the accident scene, praised the cooperation of the agencies. Stamford and Greenwich Marine Police and the Coast Guard were called; Greenwich firefighters and the Cos Cob firehouse ambulance responded; Greenwich police blocked off the turnpike; the National Guard came with helicopters. Ordinary citizens stepped forward that night. Everyone worked at a feverish pace to save lives and minimize the extent of the disaster. One unnamed hero, a man journeying home to Atlanta with his wife, had, upon spotting the collapse, exited his car and waved traffic to a stop. His quick action likely prevented more vehicles from plunging off the bridge. ...
#16 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-03-31 10:49 PM | Reply
do you hope you will be able to leave that bridge?
Fortunately for me, I seldom travel on bridges that are more than 200-400 meters long.
#17 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-03-31 11:02 PM | Reply
@#17
At the time. one of my co-workers told me thta she had driven across the Mianus Bridge mimutes before it had collapsed, driving back from the airport.
She was a fortunate one.
A repeat...
Map: Where U.S. bridges are most in need of repair www.axios.com
#18 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-03-31 11:15 PM | Reply
#18 | Posted by LampLighter
One of the networks interviewed the last guy who drove across the Key bridge before it fell.
He said, "if I'd have left a minute later ..." and realized how lucky he was.
#19 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-03-31 11:20 PM | Reply
I grew up in CT when that Mianus bridge collapse happened, it was late at night thank goodness, could have been a whole lot worse. My father commuted across that bridge every day, the detour for the year plus it was being repaired was ridiculous.
As an aside a tractor trailer ran full speed into an overpass on I-95 right near my a few years earlier, weakened the overpass for months.
It's a small world I suppose
#20 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-03-31 11:29 PM | Reply
When you combine deferred maintenance, lack of redundancy and lowered standards of politics that is now the norm in big business and government, the combined end result will inevitably be bad news and infrastructure tragedy.
#21 | Posted by Robson at 2024-04-01 09:24 AM | Reply
Of course you do when the consequences of failure are catastrophic! I suspect the cost of tugs routinely escorting cargo ships in and out of the harbor are minimal compared to the cost of rebuilding the bridge, impact on the economy, compensating families for the loss of their loved ones, dock workers and surrounding businesses out of work, etc.
It's that same kind of thinking that prevented airlines from spending an extra $150.00 to install hijack proof doors that might have prevented 911. After all, whoever thought that hijackers would enter the cockpit and try to take over the plane so that they could fly it into some buildings?
#22 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2024-04-01 01:37 PM | Reply
It's that same kind of thinking that prevented airlines from spending an extra $150.00 to install hijack proof doors that might have prevented 911.
That's like saying it prevented the government from spending $5,500 to create the Department of Homeland Security.
#23 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-04-01 01:58 PM | Reply
Back in the day when two commercial jets crashed into one another, Bill Johnson would have criticized people who wanted planes to have collision avoidance systems. Quit monday morning quarterbacking and trying to save lives. Everything is as good as it could possibly be. Right Bill?
#24 | Posted by JOE at 2024-04-01 02:09 PM | Reply
"It has been determined extended use of tugboats would just be a waste and unnecessary expense. ..."
And it was just determined (proved beyond any shadow of a doubt) that they were completely wrong about that in this case.
#25 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-04-01 02:23 PM | Reply
FAA does this all the time. Its part of the problem of over burdening the system. Its fine line and hard to navigate correctly.
Anything like hijack proof doors would be in the $10,000s of dollars per plane.
To STC something like that would cost a fortune. Such is the processes within the FAA.
#21 | POSTED BY ROBSON
My understanding is there were multiple redundancy systems. Its odd to me there isn't a fuel supply that is gravity fed though, on such a big ship couldn't it have a 1hr reserve using gravity to feed the generators etc..
What strange is they don't mentino the nationality of the captain. Not to sound conspiracy theory, but it is strange.
#26 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-04-01 02:32 PM | Reply
Get back to me after someone figures out WHY the power failed on the ship.
#27 | Posted by morris at 2024-04-01 02:33 PM | Reply
What strange is they don't mentino the nationality of the captain.
The captain and crew are all from India. That has been known and reported since Day 1.
WHY the power failed on the ship.
That is certainly the big question. The ship had two 5,000+ HP main generators and each of those had a backup. Possibly a switching problem?
#28 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-04-01 02:49 PM | Reply
The captain and crew are all from India. That has been known and reported since Day 1 - Redial
Day1?
Hadn't seen Indian crew as it wasn't confirmed until Wednesday by the coast guard.
Possibly a switching problem? #28 | POSTED BY REDIAL
Switching of what, fuel? Power?
If fuel supply for all generators was fed with electric pump this would be were I would stat looking.
#29 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-04-01 03:29 PM | Reply
Output from the generators.
#30 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-04-01 04:04 PM | Reply
"Anything like hijack proof doors would be in the $10,000s of dollars per plane."
Not true. Link or lie.
Hardened cockpit doors 5-10k
A secondary barrier another 5-10k
And the TSA Transportation Security Administration awarded "reimbursement grants" totaling $100 million to 58 carriers for the direct cost of reinforcing cockpit doors.
So that cost was absorbed by the taxpayer. (Socialism!)
#31 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-04-01 04:31 PM | Reply
After all, whoever thought that hijackers would enter the cockpit and try to take over the plane so that they could fly it into some buildings?
#22 | Posted by FedUpWithPols
U.S. intelligence services did. Bush ignored the warnings and did nothing.
#32 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-04-01 05:52 PM | Reply
The port cities decide whether they will mandate tugs and under what circumstances and conditions. Since the ports compete for traffic, they are reluctant to impose restrictions that will encourage shippers to choose another port. If Baltimore mandated tugs, some shippers would shift their traffic to another port that does not. uniform national standards would be a good start.
#33 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2024-04-01 10:11 PM | Reply
Since the ports compete for traffic, they are reluctant to impose restrictions that will encourage shippers to choose another port.
This illustrates the fundamental flaw of capitalism.
#34 | Posted by JOE at 2024-04-01 10:26 PM | Reply
34
When a governmental entity doesn't impose a safety standard?
#35 | Posted by eberly at 2024-04-01 10:40 PM | Reply
And to be candid, I'm not necessarily agreeing that tugs are an issue. Meaning the lack of a tug is due to some pressure to be competitive.
#36 | Posted by eberly at 2024-04-01 10:48 PM | Reply
There's a subreddit where marine engineers speculated on it. One noted there are still single point of failures. He experienced a blackout on a ship when 3 way cooling valve locked up causing two generators to overheat and shut down.
Informative read.
www.reddit.com
#37 | Posted by Pirate at 2024-04-01 11:03 PM | Reply
One noted there are still single point of failures.
That's not a good thing. I think it's pretty obvious there was something wrong with the ship. Four generators and no power? I have not been able determine if the main engine generated electricity or not, but it seems like not.
There were early reports that the ship had suffered serious electrical failures during the two days it was in port. If it sailed without rectifying those problems someone needs their ass kicked.
#39 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-04-01 11:46 PM | Reply
"What strange is they don't mentino the nationality of the captain. Not to sound conspiracy theory, but it is strange."
When someone wants to view every disaster through a xenophobic and politically motivated lens it is expected in today's fake-news environment. In truth, the nationality of the Captain is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. But, if your purpose is to point fingers and say look, that Captain was from ______________ country which has nothing to do with an apparent fuel problem for the generator systems. Do you think the fuel system realizes there is a foreigner running the ship and then decides to stop working. You prove, every day, that the folks here who attack and ridicule you here every day aew exactly right about you. Your comment in a very lame attempt to shift the blame for this disaster to the nationality of the Captain is both disgusting and just plain stupid.
#40 | Posted by danni at 2024-04-02 08:55 AM | Reply
"U.S. intelligence services did. Bush ignored the warnings and did nothing. #32 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY"
Bush was busy planting explosives and coordinating with terrorist pilots. ~lifts up *braaap
#41 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2024-04-02 10:34 AM | Reply
Here in Fort Lauderdale we have probably more mega-yachts than any other city in the world. I notice as they travel up and down the New River they always s have tugs attached on both ends been told this is because their insurance companies demand it. I woul feard imsgine that the insurers of the ship in Baltimore now wish they had the same policy. I do fear though that the ship was probably s foreign flag vessel snd will be able to use that to avoid culpability for the destruThe owners of the ship should notion of the bridge and the compensation for the victim's families. I honestly don't care if it bankrupts the shipping company or its owners or any insurance company that insured them. The owners of the ship should ultimately be held accountable even if any and all other vessels they own should be impounded or confiscated to offset the costs of rebuilding the bridge which was a direct result of the owners putting the cost of tug boats before the safety of those on the brifge.
#42 | Posted by danni at 2024-04-02 10:57 AM | Reply
When a governmental entity doesn't impose a safety standard? #35 | POSTED BY EBERLY
No. The fact that, under capitalism, the only cost that truly matters absent government intervention is the financial cost, not the human cost. This is a flaw in capitalism. I do not mean to imply that other systems do not have their own flaws.
#43 | Posted by JOE at 2024-04-02 12:49 PM | Reply
I do fear though that the ship was probably s foreign flag vessel
Yep... Singapore.
I honestly don't care if it bankrupts the shipping company or its owners
It won't.
Your comment in a very lame attempt to shift the blame for this disaster to the nationality of the Captain is both disgusting and just plain stupid.
Absolutely.
#44 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-04-02 12:59 PM | Reply
What strange is they don't mentino the nationality of the captain
Only strange to a race-obsessed lunatic.
#45 | Posted by JOE at 2024-04-02 02:41 PM | Reply
-What strange is they don't mentino the nationality of the captain"
Are you saying that if his name was Billy Joe Bob, from Alabama, had a rebel flag displayed in the window....they'd report that?
#46 | Posted by eberly at 2024-04-02 02:52 PM | Reply
Insurance will start to require tugboats. Shipping prices will go up slightly. Not nearly as much as artificial container shortages.
#47 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-04-02 04:21 PM | Reply
Post a commentComments are closed for this entry.Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable
Comments are closed for this entry.
Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable
