Francis Scott Key Bridge Collapse

[woodchucker]

Correct me if I am wrong here, but my understanding was that any ship over a certain weight/size had to have mandatory MANUAL primary (rudder) control ability in cases of power loss as well as backup power to any/all secondary manouvering control systems (thrusters) should the use of such systems be required?

so, I'm going to assume that the ship may have lost power long enough that it was travelling the speed of the river, in that case, a rudder maybe useless. The rudder would not have any directional control at 0 water speed.
While a plane will drop out of the sky, imagine it still flying, if it travels at 0 air speed, the rudder is useless. it needs air flowing over it, the same for water.. fluid dynamics at play.

 

[Eddyde]

Hoping in earnest at least some of the missing are found alive...

that's tragic. I don't understand why Maersk would be responsible, they only HIRED the ship to carry their cargo, it's still the owners crew.. But that's how things work in our legal system.

I read a detailed, informative article in The Atlantic about the international shipping industry. it was about 20 years ago but I doubt much has changed since then. Apparently, It is often difficult to impossible to find the actual owner of a ship. Most are reregistered in countries like Panama or Liberia, with lax or no laws protecting workers and very limited recourse for legal action. The ownership of these vessels is often cloaked by various shell companies all over the globe. Many of these ships are owned by entities/families that have been in the shipping business for very long time and want to limit their liability and remain anonymous.
Even though most of this limits the involvement of our legal system, if any of the companies involved in this tragedy, have an office here in the US they can be sued, Maersk most certainly does, and will be very likely be sued.
Honestly, I don't have a problem with that. For example, your neighbor contracts a landscaping company to cut down a tree in their backyard. They screw up, the tree falls and crushes your house. Turns out the landscaping contractor is under insured and only covers half your damages. Wouldn't you want to sue your neighbor?

 

[Ischgl99]

Sal, the YouTuber I posted about earlier has an updated video out with marine traffic charts showing the ship was in the channel as normal when it lost power.

TLDR on the video: This was a single screw ship as many container ships are. The rudder with single screw ships is at a bit of an angle to counteract the rotation of the propeller trying to turn the ship off course. Once they lost power, the rudder stays at that angle until they can regain power, but the propeller is no longer spinning, so now the ship gets steered in the wrong direction. They reportedly tried to reverse the engines once power was restored, but that might have further turned them in the wrong direction. They also dropped the port anchor to try and slow the vessel, but at the speed they were going, that did not do much.

Initial information is often wrong, so in due time we will know the sequence of events, and hopefully why it happened, but as a now, it looks like the worst possible timing for the power failure to occur, had it happened a few minutes later, it might not have made the news.

 

[rwdenney]

For this crash, everybody will be sued from the spectators on the shore to the owners of the contents of the containers.

I’m only exaggerating slightly. I’m expecting a long list of civil defendants:

-Maryland DOT.
-The contractor company who had the pothole repair contract employing the victims.
-That contractor’s insurance company.
-The shipping company (Maersk).
-The boat owner.
-The boat insurer.
-The cargo insurer.
-The Port of Baltimore.
-The pilot.
-The ship’s captain.
-The company that maintains the ship.
-The tug operators.
-The backup power system producer.
-The company that made the channel marker lights.
-Various bonding companies.

That’s just what pops into my head immediately. There will be more. Of course, most of these won’t be guilty of negligence, but they’ll let the courts figure that out. Lawyers will make money.

Rick “and ‘expert’ witnesses” Denney

 

[woodchucker]

so, I'm going to assume that the ship may have lost power long enough that it was travelling the speed of the river, in that case, a rudder maybe useless. The rudder would not have any directional control at 0 water speed.
While a plane will drop out of the sky, imagine it still flying, if it travels at 0 air speed, the rudder is useless. it needs air flowing over it, the same for water.. fluid dynamics at play.

just saw the video of the analysis, it appears to me to have lost power twice, and I was wrong about the rudder, they got power back on and reversed the engines causing the severe turn of the ship toward the pylon. It appears had they just continued on, it would have made it through, with rudder control.

 

[GrifterGuru]

I see the icebergs gets away with it this time then....

 

[woodchucker]

it's amazing that no protective pylons were in place, Even here on the Delaware river in Frenchtown and Milford, the bridges have large pylons, I believe Stockton and Lambertville too. The river can have a lot of speed after heavy rains like we had he last weekend. We had over 4 inches of rain.

 

[GrifterGuru]

it's amazing that no protective pylons were in place, Even here on the Delaware river in Frenchtown and Milford, the bridges have large pylons, I believe Stockton and Lambertville too. The river can have a lot of speed after heavy rains like we had he last weekend. We had over 4 inches of rain.

Aaaand that was something I commented on given the fact it should have had protection from just such an occurence as has happened.

Surprised the hell out of me. Have you seen some of the pylon protection on other bridges? some of the protective "pontoons" around the pylons are massive and for good reason!

 

[woodchucker]

Aaaand that was something I commented on given the fact it should have had protection from just such an occurence as has happened.

Surprised the hell out of me. Have you seen some of the pylon protection on other bridges? some of the protective "pontoons" around the pylons are massive and for good reason!

yes, I have, they keep the ship as far away as reasonably possible if it's going to be a direct hit. And if not direct, a glancing blow, they redirect it anc keep it away from the bridge pylon. Sometimes the overhang of a ship may be more than they planned for, especially if it were an aircraft carrier.

 

[GrifterGuru]

yes, I have, they keep the ship as far away as reasonably possible if it's going to be a direct hit. And if not direct, a glancing blow, they redirect it anc keep it away from the bridge pylon. Sometimes the overhang of a ship may be more than they planned for, especially if it were an aircraft carrier.

Not being political or even going into politics here but............

I have seen some pylon protection cells / dolphins / pile clusters /pontoons that need "updating" to take into consideration the larger ships and the associated overhang above the bow and stern that have become normal over the last four decades.

It is a strange situation and one where, I suspect, complacency has set down roots and as a result a culture of NMFP or frugality has become normal, resulting in sad instances such as the topic of this thread.

It really does need looking into and new laws/regulations need to be set into place such that protection for bridge pylons in navigable waters is made mandatory. It should, in part at least, be based upon the navigable area, bridge pylon style/type, bridge height and what type of vessel/s are present in that area.

They are purely my own thoughts on the matter, although they may not be entirely correct.

Anyhoosle, getting back on topic.

Any further updates on the poor souls who were working on the bridge at the time of the collapse??