How Container Ship’s Loss of Power Affected Ability to Control | SY News

People who never do anything, media etc, have no idea how complex our world is, and how much effort is expended every moment, by Competent Men, to keep chaos at bay.
Competent Men.

@@geoffreytoomey682 At first I thought this was a joke, then I thought you were a troll, but after finishing reading that, I think you might be serious. Listen no investigation has been completed yet, so everything you've heard about wind and fluid dynamics is just speculation. There are countless possibilities has to why the ship could have veered off course. The failure it sustained could have left the port side engines running a bit longer and that could have turned the ship. Furthermore, while I haven't heard anything about wind yet looking at the water's surface won't tell you much about the airspeeds 85 ft above the surface where there are no buildings to block it. And finally, calling them water currents is a little misleading as the theories about the hydrodynamics involved have to do with specific effects that cause pressure changes as boats move (which may strengthen or weaken in proportion to the water displaced by the vessel), whereas "current" implies like... temperature changes. (Okay, I guess that's not really a big deal.)
Tell me, how long did it take you to figure out that this wasn't an accident though? Can you explain your investigative process?

As best I can tell, anyone that paid for a journalism degree got robbed. The entire industry is an embarassment, and in the case of networks the ethos of "getting it first" above all else has shredded their credibility. Truth, on television, is purely accidental.

How do we explain the ship coming to an abrupt stop just because it touched a pylon leg?
Surely the weight and speed of this vessel would have kept it going, taking the bridge with it.
The evidence is obviously doctored, and that suggests that the event was pre-meditated.
How do you stop a cargo ship going at 8 knots in just the distance of 2 or three container's length?

@@Drottninggatan2017 A 30 foot gash in the hull [and accompanying shattered concrete] isn't exactly abrupt, and [if we believe reports] the vessel also ran aground. That's where the energy went - 98k tonnes worth. .

Amen 🙏

He is generally clueless.actually

Seems you have zero knowledge of how ships work. Just forget about terrorism behind the accident. Moreover it is manned by our countrymen who will never do the type of sabotage. You know, thousands of ships are currently managed by Indian crew, just because of their work culture, loyalty and sincerity. I myself must have crossed at least more than 50 such bridges, including USA, in my career.

@@geoffreytoomey682 It's always good to get a different take on what may have happened and not exclude the possibility of it being intentional. Hopefully those investigating will consider that possibility when looking more closely at what led up to this incident.

@@geoffreytoomey682 You need to see a professional for help.

I want to know the story of the 2 that survived, were they in vehicle to survive the fall

It's quite possible the driver remained unaware of his or her proximityt to disaster at the time...

Reminds me of that footage of the man on foot running for his life as the Tacoma Narrows bridge literally collapsed behind him.

​@EliteGeeks I heard a radio report yesterday that one of the people refused treatment..I would be interested to learn more on that situation and hear their perspective.

@EliteGeeks I believe it's more likely survivors are really from the barge vs on the bridge.

That May-day saved a lot of lives! But only because of the incredibly fast response time!

I just heard that it was some of the crew that were working on the pothole repairs were the ones that stopped the traffic.

It saved lives !

@schessor No. From the "Black box data....
_ 01:27:25 - Pilot issued a radio call over the VHF radio reporting the Dali had lost all power and was heading towards the bridge. Around this time MDTA data shows the following also occurred: the duty officer radioed to their units that were already on scene due to construction on the bridge - one on each side of the bridge - and ordered them to close the traffic on the bridge. All lanes were then shut down by MDTA._

Or unbelievable.

I agree I dnt live or know anybody but i feel deeply sadness for the people and the family. It's just horrible on what happen.

Yes he has more time and more knowledge

The "news" hires lots of rookie reporters that don't know their asses from a hole in the ground. Source: Me. I worked for a newspaper for 19 yrs. News today is also about soundbites. They want quick and salacious, no time for long-winded, in-depth factual reporting.

and what protocols do they have in place to ensure the vessel is running properly? is it the vessels responsibility or is it on the port authorities all the way up to the tugs setting it free? yeah...

The Baltimore bridge was collecting tolls could have paid for the multimillion pylon protection work.

That's what is so weird to me. The power line pylons _obviously_ have more protection than the bridge piers. Like.... what gives? Did no one at all think... "Well, maybe?"

I'm not sure that 'being required' is the correct terminology. The Golden Gate Bridge was built with fendering in 1934 to it's support pylons.
The Tasman Bridge in Hobart Australia was a prestressed concrete girder bridge built in 1965 with it's impact fendering to the pile caps of the main navigation span (2 only). The bridge is nearly 1.5klm long and was hit by a Bulk Ore Carrier in January 1975. The ship entered an eastern span of the bridge and hit pylon 18 and 19.
The ship sank, 12 people were killed, the captain lost his licence and the outcome enforced all shipping to be Pilot Serviced.

It appears this bridge has dolphins. But it also looks like they're placed a bit too far away, allowing enough room for this large ship to swing around and get into the bridge structure.

@@x--. I don't know what other protections there were, but there are dolphins around this bridge. But they look like they may be too far apart to have been totally effective.

it also could be Ukranian saboteurs cuz the U S isn't supplying enough ammo. Or maybe space invaders from outside the orbit of Uranus. Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it.

Why would they head off on a month long trip to Sri Lanka with such issues? Idiots.

What greed over matinence ? Never.... our entire society is based on greed and speculation so airlines shipping if they can get away with it they will. Its sad we as a spieces cant acknowledge this and enforce against it.

It had protection further out, but the spacing was too wide to stop the ship. It looks to me like they were placed to stop a ship moving the correct direction but out of the main channel but not positioned to stop a ship that angled into the bridge like what actually happened.

Smoke may be from the boiler used to heat the fuel.

It runs on diesel not bunker fuel and so does not need heating.@@astafford8865

The fuel is diesel and does not require heating, only heavy fuel, bunker fuel does. The engine is a 2 stroke, not a 4 stroke. @@astafford8865

Police were able to stop traffic but not enough time to communicate to get crew off the bridge.

Maybe the ship's horn was blowing loud and continuous as a responsible warning from the ship to whomever was still on the bridge

Got all the info she needed from truth social!! 😅

@@SVPearler Farcebook, I gathered, where any confirmation for any bias can be serviced agreeably.

@@OOL-uv2qu Whatever all this means.... much of it strikes me as a tad too simplistic for my tastes: my neighbor and friend isn't crazy, she's one of the finest people I know and it isn't my place nor particularly neighborly to diagnose her for her biases. Nor is it clear which people, authority, government or official stories you are referring to in such sweeping terms as to render them meaningless. Yes, there is crazy on ALL sides, since the internet has been mostly useful for the open-source obfuscation and trendy armchair judgments needed to keep many convinced there are only two sides. Other than that... what was it you meant to say, again?

USA the home of the tinfoil hats sadly

Q, russian trolls and now 50 cent army.

Insurance cover isn’t unlimited so they will max out those policies, they will probably declare general average to split the rest between all the owners of those containers and I would guess the owner company only owns this vessel and so will ultimately fold as the the claims will total many many many millions

Not a good time to be a Lloyd's name

@@djcwilso Not sure it will fall under the scope of the general average in this case. The legal battles might be expected in the coming years.

shows how complex running these ships are, but a task like that was probably delegated to a basic seaman, maybe even illiterate from some 3rd. world country, and whoops. and dropping the anchor?? you just lost use of your rudder, and "helped" the ship slide off course, making things worse. Like a plane they say "fly the plane" or in this case, "run the damn ship" .

The generators run on MDO and the main engine on HFO so there is no reason to switch over and they are on separate fuel supply systems. I'm not sure if there is a requirement to switch the main engine to MDO when entering/leaving port in Baltimore (i think they might do this in California) however if this was the case then I very much doubt they would be switching this over whilst they were still in port limits and during a very critical phase of the pilotage.

@@uavertical9076 We will have to wait until the Coast Gaurd and the NTSB issue their findings.

No. The generators use the same fuel as main engine. HFO​@@uavertical9076

@@user-zf3xb3qx8w It was the port forward anchor that was dropped, not the starboard. If anything, you would think that it would drag the ship towards the left, not the right. What might have happened is the anchor wasn't heavy enough and couldn't catch anything in the silt to help slow it down. And as a result, was just being dragged along the sea floor by the huge mass of the ship.
That's my armchair theory anyway.

You know your ship. Have an appreciation for Captains. Lake Erie Rat. Wouldn't want to be in this Captains shoes.

@@diannaschmidt6545 I spent 3 decades at sea with around 15yrs in command. Having said that, I agree with you, I would not want to be in that Captain's position right now, whether the outcome of this is due to negligence or not. As the person in command, the Capt is bearing a massive load on his/her shoulders right now. Its a sad day for the lives that have been lost, the general shipping industry and everyone else that will be affected by this for a long time to come.

​@uavertical9076 Changes to come, that should have already been in place. Protecting piers? We're 35 knot winds present? Bottom line, tugs were needed.

Those would be harbour tugs, used to pull the vessel away from the docks, turn her around in the channel etc. There is no requirement for tugs to escort vessels transiting the Chesapeake waterway. I'm guessing that regulation will now come in, and be extended to other similar critical waterways too.

​@@shreepanickerBuy shares in Moran Tugs

If so that will change in the future right!

@@eSysmanSuperYachts As long as interest and money lasts...

All depends what caused the blackout. You may have 3 gensets online but if the issue is on the swbd side they will simply fly away.

@@tomeksZzzz they should be on independent switchboards with a tie breaker that will immediately open when a fault is detected on one side?

Going by the sudden blackout scenario, then restoration of power fleetingly followed by blackout again, there is a strong possibility of improper grade fuel being fed to the genies, resulting in clogging of fuel nozzles.

​@@shreepanickerDo they use heavy oil that needs heating?

​The gennys use the same fuel as the ME. It could be dirty filters. Lube or fuel. An alarm event may have shut down one jenny. Leaving the other genny to become overloaded and causing it to shut down./ trip. Maybe the seawater strainers became blocked causing the engines to overheat. And trip. You will have to wait. ​@@shreepanicker

Maersk is just lessee.

its not a Maersk owned or operated vessel. The only chartered it.. I believe they would have done their due diligence to ensure it was manned correctly and had all certification in place however they are not the owner of the vessel.

@@uavertical9076 they lease vessels like the Dali from companies like Grace Ocean ltd and synergy because they offer the best prices. How can they offer the best prices? They’re flagged in places that don’t hold them to high standards of seaworthiness. Maersk knows this and charters ships with them anyways because that’s capitalism, money over safety. The profits of Maersk over the vital infrastructure for millions of Americans. Not to mention the 6 men who died.
They are culpable.
You think Boeing isn’t culpable because their contractor Spirit keeps building 737s that are falling apart? That’s not how the world works.

Anchor weighted but when power came back on the ship overcompensated and stern pushed ship to starboard is what I heard.

@@yvonnetomenga5726 correct, when a single screw vessel goes astern the prop turns counter clockwise and something called transverse thrust comes into play - think of the propeller like a paddle wheel - when it turns counter clockwise the stern gets "pulled" to port (bow to stbd).. I can almost guarantee that ploom of black smoke indicated the vessel coming full astern which would have generated a large transverse thrust effect and exacerbated the stbd swing of the vessel. Hindsight is a crazy thing when we have time to analyze what went wrong but in the heat of the moment the decision making process had to kick in rapidly and Im guessing the bridge team believed this was the best action to take (if this turns out to be what they did, but I guess time will reveal more details).

it is possible yes. Tugs can help with breaking and steering. might have mitigated the damage. and they could have aimed the ship for the multi supported parts on the side of the mainspan maybe. so collapsed area would be much smaller.

Every port is different in their protocols. This type of an incident is relatively rare.

Maybe tugs are only needed depending on the traffic...this happened at the night.... So maybe if this happened when there was more traffic, tugs would be used.

alot of it is to do with cost.. Tugs are expensive

Tugs cost A LOT of money... they are very rarely used for anything other than maneuvering alongside or away from the dock on departure.

@@uavertical9076 That ship was almost 1k feet long?

@@Cerceify correct, however its still not common practice to have tugs escorting a vessel once they have left the pier - unless the Capt requests this or its a port requirement.

A bridge of that type, even if it was built last year, would have suffered exactly the same kind of failure.
The entire thing is a stressed and balanced unit, all members in stress and tension, so a failure of any part of it will bring the whole thing down.
What was missing was adequate protection for the piers. Will be interesting to hear the explanation for that.

Honestly, i have my doubts whether protection barriers would have done much. When you have vessel with a displacement of up to 149,000t (fully loaded) and doing 8kts there is a lot of kinetic energy there! A barrier might have slowed the speed down a little of perhaps helped to alter the heading but this is all speculative.

Humans lives lost and the cost of a new bridge is in the neighborhood of $1b+. Economy affected because of the accessibility. Whoever owns this ship is going to be bankrupted.

Look at the US Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 (still very much in force) and the International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC).

There are layers of re-insurance, and at the end it will come to your premiums for car insurance going up :)

Perhaps. I've also seen suggestion that it could have been bank effects from the water of the tributary river coming into the shipping channel in the area the ship drifted through on the way to the bridge. Presumably if they lost power to the engine the prop wouldn't have been torqueing the ship too much. Probably contributions from both, to be honest.

Question: Why did it continue to accelerate if the ship's systems (and engines) were repeatedly failing?
This isn't adding up...

@@garethevans9789 it didnt.. if you look at the AIS data the ship was slowing down.. that puff of black smoke - engines coming full astern (in my opinion)

​@@uavertical9076black smoke could be the boiler

Back in the day when they build that Bridge ships where Not as big as they are today

@@montiro8999 There is still something called upgrade. California is all over this accident to know if our bridges need it.

Im not 100% sure on the Baltimore pilot arrangement but the 1 pilot could have been the docking/undocking pilot and the other pilot was onboard to escort the vessel to the pilot station which lies outside harbor limits (out to sea). The other scenario is that maybe 1 of the pilots was a trainee. Either way, there would be a pilot onboard until the vessel clears the port limits.
It would not take long for the anchor to reach the seabed. The anchor does not need power to deploy - so long as the clutch mechanism has been disengaged (which is standard practice when coming into and out of port). The band brake would need to be released and the anchor would then run out under its own weight.
The port anchor would, in my opinion, have had very little effect on the vessel movement and, if any, it would have pulled the bow around to port, not starboard as suggested.
As for container numbers, we have no indication on what was stowed below deck..

The pilots would leave via a pilot boat. Maybe after the Annapolis Bay bridge, about 15 miles further south. They provide local knowledge and guidance for the ship's captain in the narrow dredged channel for ships. Very few seconds for the anchor to reach the bottom - it's only about 55' deep. Not much power (if any) required to release the anchor - just release the brake with a big handwheel and release the chain stopper. Gravity takes over. The view is typical of container ships. No it didn't have 10,000 containers. It is a ~10,000 TEU ship. A TEU = twenty foot container equivalent unit. Most containers these days are 40' thus equal to 2 x 20' containers. So more like less than 5000. I have read 2nd pilot was a trainee. I don't know when Baltimore pilots leave but maybe past Annapolis/Bay Bridge. Or they may go as far as Norfolk. Or they may be other pilots for the lower Chesapeake Bay that come aboard and take over.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing... I'm a master on harbour tugs in The Netherlands. It is common practice the captain of a cargo vessel sends the tugs off after the ship is clear of the quay, making headway and is under control. In some cases however, the tugs are asked to remain either connected or at least standing by escorting the ship if there is any risk expected ahead. This also depends very much on local regulations which vary from port to port.

It should be foresight. You don't let a huge ship like that head towards a navigation hazard without tug supervision. That just wouldn't be allowed at Sullom Voe in the Shetlands. @@MRood-su1yi

@@MRood-su1yi Would 2 tugs be able to steer a ship of that size and weight away from the bridge pilings? The ship is awfully huge.

They should have provided the tugs necessary for any potential situation.@@lesflynn4455

It backed out. Was out of control due to blackout. Simples

@@astafford8865 yes but the only thing that can turn that ship that fast is a current or the wind. Take a mile to make a circle. It practically spun out. Been raining a lot and that river mouth is the biggest in the harbor.

Navigation equipment is likely on a UPS, the problem is the steering gear on a vessel like that is absolutely massive and likely some electro hydraulic setup requiring dozens of horsepower equivalent which is a lot harder to setup in a way that can be run as a UPS

@@Simon-ho6ly 100% correct, the bridge has its own UPS system and those would all have remained powered up during a blackout.. the steering gear on the other hand is just too big for a UPS.. the size of the hydraulic rams to move the rudder are HUGE...

@@uavertical9076 I am assuming that the rudder is either turned by hydraulic rams if that is the case a battery bank could certainly run a hydraulic power pack large enough to turn the rudder or the rudder could be powered for maybe one or two sweeps lock to lock by a hydraulic accumulator that is kept charged by a hydraulic pump used to to turn the rudder under normal operation. I am a firm believer in the 6P’s and firmly believe that “Can’t never could do sh*t”

@@uavertical9076 Maybe I miss understood our esteemed host of this video but he made sound as if the ship lost electrical power navigation equipment etc would go down until the backup/emergency generator came back on line which I admit sounds rather silly but the biggest boat I have ever been on while under power was 70 foot commercial fishing boat that if I had known what I know now I would of never stepped foot on that monument to corrosion and rust because nothing on that boat was redundant except for the rust

@@gullreefclub navigation equipment is quite a broad concept and could include things such as the main engine, rudder, bridge equipment etc.. the bridge equipment would be connected to a UPS system but things like the steering gear would not be.

Easy to say, but bear in mind that the bridge is nearly fifty years old, and many thousands of ships have passed beneath it.
Tugs are expensive, and would certainly slow down the flow.
Shoals near the bridge piers would be cheaper, and a one-time cost.
There is a point where you cannot mitigate against every possibility.

This used to be a requirement according to a comment I saw on another post. Of course in the interest of economics tugs were allowed to be cast off before a large vessel had passed under the Keys bridge.

Tugs cost money , and are normally discharged in every port once rudder control is possible in open water.

@@richardelliott8352 It's not really open water until the ship is beyond the bridge. Tugs do cost money but a broken bridge and a major harbour blocked off cost rather more.

If the ship doesn't have way on it. It will not steer. 8 knots is not fast

Speed inside the port limit is known by the Pilot on board. In my experience most USA pilots never exceed, most of them reduce speed than what is allowed by the port control. I believe if Blockout did not occur the pilot will reduce speed .

Because the bridge wouldn't hear it. Or get out of the way.

Because the bridge wouldn't hear it. Or get out of the way.

electronic communications are more effective , and a horn would have been useless .

Agreed, seems like the 24volt backup never worked.

That's what I keep thinking about. It will be years before the people on the ship's bridge can get the image of the slow, helpless approach to the bridge pylon out of their heads. Ugh!

There's two more bridges after that one: the Bay Bridge and the bridge/tunnel at the entrance to the bay. Do the tugs go all the way to the ocean?

@@michaelsommers2356do those bridges have protection against being struck? If no, then Yes.

I believe the captain, crew and pilots would likely have been instructed to not speak to the press or anyone else about this. This would be standard practice during any incident/accident investigation.

The crew proabably wont talk until sea incident court hearing.