I have been a Marine Engineer for 35+ years of which 18+ years were as Chief Engineer. I have observed in many ports where there are bridges spanning the channel as is at Baltimore Port the Port Authority makes it mandatory that the Tug Boats remain with the Vessel till it clears the bridge, then why was this not implemented by the Baltimore Port Authority??? A very Critical and Important regulation.
Because assisting tug cost money. With Maersk as charter you have to "please explain" each dime spent aside the fees stipulated in contract. At 8 knots, a ship like that, with such overstructure above the water, has a restricted maneuvrability. For ship safety reason, any seafarer with good seamaship, with a good risk assesment done when planning the voyage, would have taken into account a tug in assistance. As chief engineer I always consulted with my ship's captain advised him and informed him about ER situation, about any deficiency no matter how small or insignificant. That's why I say, without fear of being wrong, that this event ocurred due the ship's fault. "Dirty fuel excuse" is lame.
@@MsSailorman The Global Economy has turned down so there might be a glut of empty ships looking for loads and cutting prices to get bookings. Cut prices means some companies will employ the cheapest labour they can find , Maybe not always with the best training however thats wild speculation , for all i know they could have been excellent crew. Tugboats are big $$$ per hour. Any time spent tied up in dock or in harbour costs big money too , It is reported the ship had electrical problems during the last 48 hours of loading so NTSB will be investigating the true electrical fault , investigating who attempted repairs and what wasn't done correctly. There could have been 4 - 5 small issues that combined at the same time. NTSB will tell us eventually.
@@heartobefelt you may be right, onboard MV Dali could be "an excellent" crew but with unprofessional high rank officers. 😉 I don't blame the entire crew, but for sure captain and chief engineer are to be blamed. Leaving the port with such technical unsolved issues that can cause a black out out of the blue, it mean you put your ship and crew in real danger. You know what can hapen with a ship without propulsion in the midle of a storm in the middle of the Ocean? No you don't, only a seafarer can imagine that. Indeed, first cost cutting in an industry is with employes wages. Low wages automatically is reflected in low professionalism, low experience, low quality of the employies you can get. To maintain a ship, besides spare parts you need at least experienced high rank ofgicers to share their experience and expertize. You need experienced high rank officers not to panic in crisis moment, with a good crisis management and good seamanship, leadership and good impact of life onboard. Beside NTSB (or what's the name) I'll appoint also an ITF inquiry to see what was the life and working condition onboard at the moment of accident. Working onboard isn't like a job ashore, where after working hours you go home and "recharge your batteries".
@@MustaphaZehhaf These were my thoughts. When I saw the first video, I developed a mental image of what was happening onboard and the more I read, the more I think that my mental image was correct. Firstly, I think that the power loss was a red herring. Generators do not stall, but if they did, the time taken to restart by inching to the starting position, applying the air, starting and then synchronising the alternators would have taken 10 times longer than the blackout. My theory is that overloading (possibly by using the bow thruster) tripped some breakers. the first ones to drop out would be the domestic, hence the loss of lighting. Secondly, smoke. They were trying to reverse the prop. To do this, the main engine wold have been reduced to idle. Only after prop rotation stopped, would the transfer box be reversed and the engine spooled up again. This was the smoke that we saw. Only the main engine would have produced this quantity of smoke. Finally, the anchors. These would have dropped on both sides of the ship and dragged along the sea bed, digging in and restraining the forward motion. If the RHS dug in deepest or hit a rock, the front of the ship would have swung over in this direction. I strongly suspect that this was the principal cause of the accident that resulted.
One of the best videos to date on this incident. Thanks for posting video. PS - on another RU-vid channel, a civil engineer, went over the formula used to determine how much energy to would take to slow down that much mass. Also looked at how big a dolphin or barrier would have had to have been present to protect the bridge. It would be interesting to use a ships simulator, like the kind they use to train USN bridge crews, plus in port of Baltimore data and MV Dali data, plus wind and tide and see what would happen.
Great video on explaining what happened, but.... I have to disagree because this accident was avoidable. Had there been adequate pier protection in place for the bridge, like what they have for the Sunshine Skyway bridge.... The ship wouldn't have been able to make contact with the bridge in the first place!
@@mercuryshadow09 Again, I have to disagree. If you look at pictures of the pier protection for the Sunshine Skyway bridge... Not only do they have massive dolphins, they also have a massive amount of riprap protecting the main bridge piers. A ship like the Dali would simply run aground. In the past, people have also said we don't need seatbelts and airbags in cars, or TCAS systems in aircraft.
@@DavidJohnson-tv2nn what are the dimensions of the "riprap" around the piers? They don't look more than maybe six car lengths under the highway. How much does Dalis bow flare out from the keel?
@@mercuryshadow09 Not sure of the exact dimensions of the riprap. Your estimate seems pretty close. Six car lengths would be 90 to 100 feet. Doubt the bow flare is more than that. In any case, it is a simple engineering solution to put enough riprap to protect the pier. Also, dolphins, fenders, riprap, and other pier protection systems are expendable. It doesn't matter if they get damaged or destroyed in a collision. The point is to protect the bridge. And its very cost effective compared to the cost of an accident!
@@DavidJohnson-tv2nn you might be right. What's up with shippings opinion was, the chin of the ship would crumble the barrier enough to still hit the pylon.
Great explanation. I served on Ocean going tug, also did heavy duty search and rescue. All I can say is the timing of this event was very precise, to the point of amazing!
Sorry to say but the moment the vessel got the power back and the commands given to FULL ASTERN as you can see from the exhaust fumes out of the funnel was the COMPLETE WRONG MOVEMENT as the vessel will turn hard to starboard. The course before the accident black-out was 140 and was good enough to sail through /under the bridge between the 2 pillars. Going astern will change the course rappidly to starboard and vessel will hit the pillar. So with all your expertice, NOBODY is talking about that. Better you go back to school again.
With the wind and current they were fighting, crash astern doesn't even need to be part of the equation. I suspect that's why most aren't mentioning it.
The smoke was a result of the crew restarting the main engine. The Dali is a diesel powered ship and as such needs to exhaust any built up gasses or whatever, so the engine doesn't choke. While I don't claim to be an expert on the matter, I know enough about how diesel engines work. This is why for example you see a semi truck idling on the side of the road as it can take some time to get a diesel engine running. It's not like the internal combustion engine you find in your car, after all. As for why the ship turned the way it did on camera and why it seems the ship was aiming at the bridge on purpose. This is because it's an optical illusion created by both the position of the camera and the reflections off the water. Again, I am not an expert in this area, but again I'm familiar with how water reflection can play visual tricks on us. This is backed up farther by where the ship would up at, look up a pic/video online sometime of the Dali and where it's at on the bridges structure, and it's easy to see the ship grazed the pillar but not hit it head on. Besides, if this was some sort of nefarious attack, why would the crew alert anyone on the shore or give a mayday? Also, why do it at night? If this was a terrorist attack, you would think they would do it in the day during rush hour when there's more people to kill.
If we take a closer look at the video showing the channel and the position of the bridge it can be noticed that the exit/entry point to the channel is very close to the pillar of the bridge. It appears that the Baltimore Port Authority has either overlooked this or didn’t care, because any good Port Authority Official would have made it mandatory for all vessels entering and leaving Baltimore Port to have Tugs escorting them.
The major question in determining, "Was this...avoidable?" is why were there interruptions of power? This is not discussed by the Captain. The only discussion as to the cause of the interruption I have heard on internet involved the fuel used. It seems possible that as the ship was heading out of the river, fuel was changed from the low sulfur grade (expensive) to a higher sulfur fuel (cheaper) If so, one might wonder if this change might not have been done once the ship had passed under the bridge and headed out to sea. I would like to hear the Captain's comments on this question.
If this is what happened, then they are facing a major problem which can leads to jail. The FO change over is made when you leave the Emission Control Area which is miles from the port.
@@MustaphaZehhaf I am a former ship's captain, every maneuver, docking & undocking of a vessel the fuel is Diesel oil the grade doesn't matter, the change over to other fuel, like bunker is when the vessel is safely out of the harbor, the time when the Captain ordered the engine to change over to bunker oil.
@goedelite, fuel change over for auxiliary engines (if they are designed to run also on HFO) is out of discution as NAECA limit is 200Nm from US shore line overthere. So "dirty fuel oil" is a lame excuse. Most probable reason is poor maintenance, fuel filters exchange overdue, and other maintenance in overdue.
Wouldn't the ship sail straight ahead on it's own momentum under the bridge rather than trying to restart the engines at that point and cause the ship to turn into the bridge
Thank you Sir for your explanation of what happened during this emergency and your real life experience explaining these occurrences to us layman. I just found your channel and subscribed looking forward to more of your videos Thank you.
I put forward the theory it went into reverse but on a ship of this design I found out that that was probably unavailable because you would have to slow the propeller down 0 to get in reverse it takes can take about 9 minutes the main engine drive the propeller with a slow blade directly it gets power from the propeller shaft but they only use that when they're at a constant speed most of the ships power is provided by auxiliary generators the emergency generator doesn't very much capability as exclusively used for emergency systems including steering it doesn't make enough power to start the propulsion engine which is connected to the propeller, the other thing about the bow thrusters is that they would be ineffective and they would take far too much power to operate even if they were operational in the circumstances, the actions they took increase the pivoting to the right but there was a flow from the channel behind them which was pushing the back of the ship to the left. There are other people on the videos who have more knowledge of the thing but as far as I can see if it was an accident it was multiple things going wrong at the same time the other thing for later on is how deep is the shipping channel because at the moment the ship is pinched under the bridge and slightly outside the shipping lane so that it didn't go down too deep when the bridge landed on it
Regarding the propeller, the vessel had a black out which stopped the engine immediately hence the propeller, once the power resumed, they've tried to reverse which explains the black smoke from the funnel, this is is still a theory though.
@@MustaphaZehhafthey wouldn't have to stop the shaft first? My theory was the same as the fellow above that they tried to crash astern but a few people have said you can't reverse the engine until the shaft stops. We did these maneuvers during training exercises but always while the engine was running.
@@MustaphaZehhafI suspect the people saying you have to stop the shaft first are just going on their experience of stopping completely before you reverse. I know you can crash astern on Naval vessels, I wasn't sure if it was different for commercial is why I asked. Appreciate your knowledge sir.
@@mercuryshadow09 The Chief Engineer, would not give you any any awards for going crash astern. But I am happy that @MustaphaZehhaf explained that it can be done, because I was certain crash astern would be part of the sea worthiness tests that ships go through right after being delivered. But a lot of people online have said that you can't do it, and I was starting to doubt myself. It has been more than 10 years ago I stopped sailing.
The drop of one of the 2 anchors might have slow down the container speed but it (wrong anchor) might also changed the container path that contributed to the bridge collapse.
Anchor was dropped TOO LATE. It should have been launched at the first black-out, not almost 5 minutes after when the distance between the ship and the bridge pillar was already WAY TOO SMALL.
@@captaindave6998 same question I added in one of my comment. It seems that Dali's captain was overhelmed by the captain responsabilities and duties. To be an officer onboard such ships isn't enough to have some stripes on your shoulder. 😉 Why cpt didn't order to drop the anchor AT FIRST BLACK-OUT? He was on the bridge at that time? I bet he wasn't.
Veered? It was about an 11 degree change leading up to the allision. The camera angle we've all seen created an optical illusion making it look like a dramatic direction change but to hear experts like Sal of "What Is Going On With Shipping" talk about it people are misinterpreting what they're seeing based on understandable ignorance (not many of us are mariners). There's still a lot of questions about how and why the ship lost power and behaved as it did which the NTSB investigation should determine.
@@MustaphaZehhaf But did the ship not have different owners/operators/crewing department back then? I just have a feeling that Synergy just took over in the last few years.
The Captain & crew were all Indians As the Ship steadily appriached the Bridge there was a power failure , however in one minute emergency power was restored to the steering The Ship was making a headway of about 8 Knots The Pilots decided to stop the ship by giving stern moment , for the reason of the black smoke & also dropped the port anchor the two crucial mistakes, The stern movement made the head to Cant (swing) to St bd heading the Bridge pillar , after which the 2nd blackout occured , & the vessel hit the pillar It should be noted that he heading of the vessel depends on the momentum which was 8 Knots & not on the propulsion , Moreover for a ship making a forward momentum of 8 Knots , stern or bow thrust would have no effect, other than to Cant to the right What should have been done after emergency power was restored to the steering was not to slow down & drop the anchor but navigate the ship under the Bridge using the momentum of 8 Knots The truth of the crash may never come out lest Insurance/Compensation be denied for the Pilots/officals erranous actions when faced with an emergency,
Well explained, at 8 knots you need to keep the rudder hard to port, and when the propulsion is back , ahead movement would give the vessel a swing to port.
Slow Ahead making 8 Knots , to reduce Squat effect as the ship was laden , The dep conditions were ideal with a mere 0,2 Knots current & wind not having an adverse effects ,
@abrahamphilip6439 Yes but that doesn't matter one bit, yes I know Indian crews have a reputation and all but even so I don't think that has anything to do with what happened. Even if this was a well-trained crew with years of experience, there was so little time allotted to do much of anything. Heck, even a crew of Sonic the hedgehogs with years of maritime experience would have a lot on their hands.
I suspect it was put into reverse. The port anchor was dropped to counter act paddle wheel effect of the propeller in reverse. Both actions combined with wind and currents, to steer the ship to starboard.
Sir can you plz explain why the thick black smoke came from the exhaust funnel? Is the DG was overloaded, is they operated the BT 100% or it's max level for that DG trips again and vessel goes black out.
@@prosantadey9605 That was from the attempt to restart the ship's engines. The Dali from what I know of it is a diesel powered ship and as such the smoke was a result of burn off. Diesel engines need a clean system to operate correctly and don't work like the internal combustion engine in your car. This is why if you ever see a semi truck on the side of the road idling and large plumes of smoke come out, it's from the engine getting itself going.
My first thought was like yours, "where are the tugs to clear all potential dangers?" Also, why was the ship aimed at the middle of the bridge with wind from the port side. Bad strategy. They should have given more clearance to the starboard side when approaching the bridge with the wind as it was. Just plain common sense. I've done the same in my little 41' houseboat. Wind is an enemy, but you can use it to your advantage, as well.
Well, the ship aiming for the center of the bridge was to possibly get back into the shipping lanes and allow the undersea current to move the ship out of harms way. It's best to understand shipping lanes are not just some kind of arbitrary rule set by politicians, as having dedicated shipping lanes is a good thing. It's because most shipping lanes are deep enough for large vessels like this from both scraping the bottom of the ocean and or allowing them to pass safely under bridges. It's also based on well known currents, as they can help a ship move faster. However, it seems both undersea currents and the wind did play some part in this, as the ship was near another undersea current coming from the right of the ship. Baltimore harbor has many undersea currents, including the Curtis bay channel, which was quite near to where the ship first lost power. Now, note I’m not a total expert at this kind of thing, still as someone who has a fascination with ships and maritime disasters I do have some base knowledge on the matter.
@@bluenetmarketing there was a weather report from that night that said 30 to 40 mph wind gusts. Now the local weather page that I saved has removed it.
@@MustaphaZehhaf captain, that I know, but he really was on bridge at the moment of first black-out? I have 40 years experience at sea of wich 24 as C/E. I sailed with many nationalities and I know from experience the life at sea. So, if he was on bridge at that time, WHY he didn't order to drop PS anchor? Why the order came from pilot almost 5 minutes after? How it was possible to have black-out when ship was in departure maneuver with POB? How many generators were synchronized in MSB at that moment? Too many irregularities there and allow me to blame the crew. I know, is harsh to say this but there was a pile of mistakes, low profesionalism, poor ship management, poor crisis managment, poor ER maintenance. You know, as I know, a black out doesn't occur from nothing. Poor maintenance is the main reason of such thing. When and where was the last PSC? What irregularities were found? When was the last Paris MOU inspection and last class survey? 😉
@@MsSailorman Do you agree with my version of what went wrong, particularly the time factor of synchronising generators.? When I saw the first video, I developed a mental image of what was happening onboard and the more I read, the more I think that my mental image was correct. Firstly, I think that the power loss was a red herring. Generators do not stall, but if they did, the time taken to restart by inching to the starting position, applying the air, starting and then synchronising the alternators would have taken 10 times longer than the blackout. My theory is that overloading (possibly by using the bow thruster) tripped some breakers. the first ones to drop out would be the domestic, hence the loss of lighting. Secondly, smoke. They were trying to reverse the prop. To do this, the main engine wold have been reduced to idle. Only after prop rotation stopped, would the transfer box be reversed and the engine spooled up again. This was the smoke that we saw. Only the main engine would have produced this quantity of smoke. Finally, the anchors. These would have dropped on both sides of the ship and dragged along the sea bed, digging in and restraining the forward motion. If the RHS dug in deepest or hit a rock, the front of the ship would have swung over in this direction. I strongly suspect that this was the principal cause of the accident that resulted.
@@wilsjane you are not totally wrong, but here some "inside details" about that ship. ME was 2T reversible. That means the ship speed is obtained by ME revolution as the propeller pitch is fixed. From ahead to astern you need to put the ME in STOP. MV Dali has 4 generators (I'm not aware about each one power output). Usually, the MSB is divided in 2 (PS and SB). All vital system is powered by 2 pumps, no1 and no2, each pump being powered from separate MSB partition. During maneuver you should have ship's electrical power consumption separated from the bowthruster power supply (due the bowthruster power peaks). On 2T reversible engine with fixed propeller, bowthruster is powered by generators BUT, on constant speed main engine, bowthruster is powerd by ME via a shaft generator. As I said, in this case, during maneuver Bowthruster and ship power supply should be separated, not to interfere one with another. If they were in the same power supply line, BIG MISTAKE. Plus, this ship (as I saw In a USCG footage) is equipped with PMS (power managment system) who manage the power and start, or stop, automatically the ship's generators according the power load in MSB. During cargo operation, according to some witness declaration, they had power failure while alongside due some reefer connection boxes. So: 1st. I assume they didn't have the PMS on manual to keep during maneuver at least 2 generators in MSB. 2nd. Knowing the reefer's issues unsolved while alongside, they didn't switched off the reefer's connection boxes while POB period. 3rd, if they had the bowthruster and ship's power supply in the same power line, A VERY BIG MISTAKE! If you ask me, captain and chief engineer had a pile of mistakes and wrong decisions that lead to this outcome. Starting with ER management and continuing with bridge management. I can bet thatvat first black out captain wasn't on bridge, therefore a delay in proper action. With "some captains" (like this case) no deck officer is allowed to take decision without capt permision. The anchor (or both) had to be dropped (with enough shackels) in the water at the first black-out. Black smoke is normal when starting a marine turbo diesel engine, no matter is on astern or ahead, no matter is 2T or 4T, no matter is reversible or constant speed. Is caused by low air intake at startup, until turbo start to build up some air intake pressure. Allow me to say the root cause of this accidentvis A HUGE INCOMPETENCY AND LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM from the 2 high rank officers onboard, cpt and c/e.
Thank you so much for your breaking news. Report on what happened in Baltimore! For some strange reason, no other RU-vid channel or mainstream news channel or newspaper has reported on this yet! Without your courageous and unique reporting that no one else is doing, the world would not know the truth!
@@mercuryshadow09 True - on the one had. On the other had, what did I do wrong? I thanked the video's creator and then provided a new vocabulary word for his viewers. What was wrong with that?
Compare to others container ship are well maintained at sea or in port either big or small old or new, there's some protocol in other countries about environmental issues like in the US you have to switch from heavy fuel to pure diesel while channelling or in the port since the auxilliary engines and the main engine are design for heavy fuel use and so with the emergency generetor but some ship only the emergency generator runs on pure diesel just to power the electrical system of the ship for the pilot even he's a well experienced he can't compel, in 8 knots or around 127 meter a minute the power went off and on that spot its a run away ship, tugs are verry important Not just sometimes it happen shifting of other form of fuel its a hell for the engineers when something goes wrong since the auxilliary engines that gives power to run all the machinery that drives the main engine the steering and so the deck machinery That bridge are well design from yesteryear and ship nowadays are getting bigger and bigger.
They would not fuel during maneuvering. Usually cargo ships run on marine gas oil (which is similar to diesel, though a little heavier) when they are in port and during maneuvering in and out. This is on top ECA zones, where the ship might have 2 different kinds of Heavy Fuel Oils (high and low sulfur) .
Here is made a big confusion. Emergency generator is EMERGENCY GENERATOR. Isn't used to power the ship in normal operation, no matter hfo or mdo. Auxiliary generators are the one for electrical power of the ship. At sea, it's used a shaft generator, attached to main engine. During maneuvers you should have more than one generator synchronized in MSB to have less than 40% load, to prevent any "power hicups". In N. America is put of question to use HFO (or VLSFO) behind 200Nm limit from shore line, except in Florida Strait, where is 12 Nm, due economical zone.
Perhaps, but guessing is all we have so far. Still, this and many other videos I watched on the matter have delivered many fascinating aspects on what possibly happened.
She was Slow Ahead and She can still steer at Dead Slow Ahead but I cannot say anything for sure from my office. You need to be onboard to assess the situation.
Good answer, nor have I found any other discussion online that questions if 8 kts was an excessive speed. I feel sorry for the Pilot and the Master of mv DALI, who presumably relied as usual on the Pilot and gave him Slow Ahead soon as they entered the channel. Hopefully DALI's headway speed will eventually be addressed in an enquiry and meanwhile pilots and masters of large vessels everywhere ought to be doing a formal risk assessment of speed before getting underway. I suppose in retrospect the Master and Pilot in question would wish they took more time and kept at Dead Slow with kicks ahead if necessary until past the KEY BRIDGE.
Dude you need to rephrase your statement, Francis Scott Keys has been there since 1976,you were not born yet & it’s your fellow Indian Capt👨✈️that collided to the innocent majestic bridge, just like the full Indian crew of Ever4giveN⚓️😜🇮🇳
I would like to know how badly damaged the bow of the ship is? Has it taken on water? And, what is holding it up? The ship appears to be sitting level in the water which would mean that either hull is still water tight or that the bow is sitting on something that is supporting it. Even more so in that there is a large chunk of the collapsed bridge, several thousand tons, laying across the bow.
@@MustaphaZehhaf I'm hoping that at omw point someone will talk about it. The most reasonable explanations to me are that the hull was not breached below the water line and the bow of the ship is either sitting on the bottom (beached) or a portion of the underwater bridge structure.
the bow of the shio is sitting on the bottom the water is shallow .. barely enough to float and the weight of the bridge is holding it down....they may have to dredge to remove debris U.S navy sonar shows it on the bottom
Training and qualification was a major contribution to the damage. The captain has to make it clear his action he expects to be acted on. "Loss of Power" versus "Loss of Steering" mmm... Diesel Engines have a run away condition...Loss of Control of Propulsion"...leads to locking of the rudder into Hard STBD?
@@Skidderoperator they also had just passed the channel to Curtis Bay on their starboard side, the tide was going out and would push the stern to port, it was the perfect storm of events it seems. They lost power at the worst possible place.
If they were to require tugs for this bridge, then why not also require tugs for the next major bridge they pass on the way out, this one MUCH further out? If so, it gets expensive really fast! And then, why not require tugs for ALL bridge passing's of large vessels, such as Öresundsbron between Sweden and Denmark, despite no port being there? How large would those tugs have to be to be able to control a vessel of this size that lacks power? (Lets assume some bad wind, instead of these favorable conditions).
It depends on the state and port authority how they evaluate the ratio Risk/Expenses. Now we are talking about Billions. Could be prevented by keeping the tugs another hour.
CAPTAIN EXPLAINS; The Full Story of Baltimore Bridge Collapse Reference; Why build a new road bridge at all, to replace the now destroyed and collapsed Baltimore's Key Bridge Dali Allision? Why build another bridge automatically, just because there was a bridge there first? Why not look at other alternative, start with a clean sheet of paper. Baltimore and Maryland plus Federal Administrations, has been given a golden opportune here. To think about and actually to build something better, than just replacing like for like because of narrow minded thinking. True this is a sad event, with lost of live involved, though building a new bridge will have the same risky and dangers as the old bridge suffered from. The danger of Shipping Channel Marine Accidents and Disaster, involving High Impact collision by a Very Large (100,000 plus Tonnes Gross Weight) Container Ship’s (VLCS’s) or Ultra Large (200,000 plus Tonnes Gross Weight), Whether at slow manoeuvring speed less than 3 to 5 knots (5,56 to 9.26 kph, or 3.45 to 5.75 mph), or at cursing speed of between 9 to 17 knots (16.67 to 31.48 kph, or 10.36 to 19.56 mph), or at maximum speeds of between 19 upto 25 Knots (35.19 to 46.3 kph, or 21.87 to 28.77 mph). Or one of these “VLCS’s” or “ULCS’s”, breaking its mooring’s or losing power while underway, as in the case of Baltimore Port and Bridge Container Ship Marine Accident and Disaster, then drifting with the local currents and tidal flows, plus wind and weather conditions too, totally without power and steering too. Any undefended or not protected Marine infrastructure, let alone and especially a Bridge and its support piers and columns, being hit by a vessel of over 50,000 Tonnes Gross Weight just drifting at 3 to 7 knots (5.56 to 12.96 kph, or 3.45 to 8.06 mph) maybe even more. There a risk of bridge collapse to some degree, though an impact from a Very Large let alone Ultra Large vessel of 100,000 to 200,000 Tonnes Gross Weight, again just drifting at 3 to 7 knots (5.56 to 12.96 kph 0r 3.45 to 8.06 mph) maybe a great deal more. Think of it like, you’re own unprotected house, or bungalow, or condominium (or condo) Building or even a Skyscraper Apartment building too. Being hit by the force and energy of a moving 100,000 to 200,000 tonnes of Ship, that is just travelling at walking speed (2 to 4 mile per hour, or between 3.22 to 6.44 kph), there would not be much left afterwards. No undefended bridge or not protected Marine infrastructure, is going to stand up to that amount of force and energy hitting them, something will go or give. With either serious constructional damage to the Marine infrastructure, basically requiring replacement not repairs too. Or causing total destruction of the Marine infrastructure too, then it is a matter of salvaging all the debris. Before starting over again, with new designed and built Marine infrastructure, as it Baltimore case too! So any Marine Infrastructure, within the water on the water surface and/or coming out of the water, is at risk of collisions by a vessel of some kind and of whatever size too! However, underwater tunnel which is breath the seabed or ocean floor, or below inland waterway or shipping canal or river and estuary bottom, or a semi-submerge tunnel laying in a drug and dredged out trench on the bottom. Or an underwater tunnel, that has been placed in deep dug and dredged underwater trenches, then covered over for added protection, that is well below commercial shipping vessels maximum draft, has no risk from collisions at all. So why not instead dredge and dig out a deep trench across the Main Shipping Channel bottom, that is from North to South side of Baltimore basically. Then install a new underwater pre-fabricated reinforced concrete modular / segment types, constructed road tunnel or rail and road tunnel. Afterwards covering over the trench and all the underwater tunnel segments, with metres of combined mix of dredged out sand, mud and silt and soil adding in different sizes of small gravel stones and medium rocks as a protection level too. Though allowing to also dredge and dig out the Main Shipping Channel deeper and wider first, to allow for future Ultra Large Container Ships (carrying 25,000 to 30,000 TEU’s) entering and leaving Port of Baltimore by 2060 to 2090. With these new rail and road tunnel pre-fabricated reinforced concrete segments, being built on land in a special production facility with slipway and dry docks plus enclose fabrication halls or hangars. With individual segments, could be either 50 metres or 100 meters long, while all segments would be between 25 to 50 meters wide too. Depending on whether the new underwater tunnel, was designed on being only a 4 lane road tunnel. Or both a twin track rail and 4 lane road tunnel, lastly each segment being 15 metres high too. So either each segment would consisting of two double lane roadway tubes, with one going in either direction. For motorcycles and cars, vans and lorries, buses and coaches etc, with one service and escape passageways tube running between roadway tubes too. Then maybe with two separate single rail track tubes, with either one rail track tube going in either direction, that is just for local commuter trams or light railway services, plus with a second service and escape passageways tube running between the two rail track tubes too. Or with one rail track tube for inter city and state passenger and freight trains, which is used alternatively for North or South bound trains. With the second rail track tube for local commuter trams or light railway services, which again is used alternatively for North or South bound trains. Lastly a second service and escape passageways tube, running between the two rail track tubes again too. Then individual segments would be built on land, then each being floated and towed out to the Main Shipping channel by tugboats. To be then positioned in place, before being flooded and lowered by special floating heavyweight semi-submergible cranes. With this dredged and dug out underwater submerge tunnel trench bottom, being depth of around 43 metres / 141.1 feet, to 47 metres / 154.2 feet) That is the pre-dredged and dugout submerge tunnel trench, having a height of 20 metre itself, that is below the increased depth of the Main Shipping Channel’s new bottom, being 23 metres / 75.5 feet, to 27 metres / 88.6 feet too. All the dredged and dug out Mud and Silt, or Sand and Soil, plus stones and rock etc. Would be either transported away by barges to be used elsewhere, for the likes of land fill projects and building new ports and harbours, or water front developments etc. Or used for either coastal or inland waterways defence projects, including defences measures for protecting other marine infrastructure (bridges etc) too, that is along the American Eastern Seaboard. Though some of the dredged and dug out Mud and Silt, or Sand and Soil, plus stones and rock etc, would be stored short term ashore. To be then dumped over the finished underwater submerge tunnel segments and trench they now lay in too. With each new lowered segment joined to the last segment put in place too, each segment tubes would have removable and re-usable watertight bulk heads, that is at either end of their roadway and rail track tubes basically too. Once the latest segment is joined to the last one in placed, the latest one is pumped out of water and inner removable and re-usable watertight bulk heads, is disassembled and removed back along the tunnel to the surface for reuse again. This process could be carried from both shorelines at the same time, with meeting in the middle somewhere, by a final custom built segment joining both half’s of this underwater submerged road or road and rail tunnel. See Germany and Denmark Governments with EU Assistance, new €10 billion project crossing a stretch of the Baltic Sea, known as the Fehmarn Belt. Which will be by late 2029 to early 2030 hopefully. Becoming the world's longest (18-kilometers) underwater rail and road tunnel, consisting of two double-lane motorways and two electrified rail tracks, with the entire tunnel being built from using pre-fabricated reinforces concrete elements. It is Europe's largest construction site, located on the coast of Denmark, with over 2,000 workers involved in preparing pre-fabricated reinforces concrete elements for the tunnel. See either DW News, Date; 10 May 2023, FEHMARN BELT, RU-vid Video; ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-VwkytAsOhbs.html, Or See How the Fehmarnbelt Tunnel is being built, by FemernAS, Date; 10 May 2022, RU-vid Video; ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zf7C5DiEVpA.html
Obviously something caused the ship to turn hard to starboard after the power outage. That is the big unanswered question in all of these investigations.
It didn't turn hard. With wind and current they were making constant rudder adjustments back and fourth, we don't know if the rudder was turned to starboard when she lost power, wind was blowing at the port side and they were just passing Curtis Bay channel on their starboard side, the tide was going out and the tidal current would push the stern to port as well.
You ever lose power steering in your car while making a turn, now imagine when that happens, you have to climb into your trunk and hand crank your front wheels before you crash.
Except it didn't, yes the video we see on the news looks like the ship intentionally rammed the bridge, but that cannot be further from the truth based on the endless photos we see where the Dali impacted. They all clearly show the ship was to the left of the center pylon and only hit it because of the ship's overhang. Another thing of note is that there was another undersea current right near where the Dali first lost power, and thanks to the full moon it's possible that had an effect on the ship's rudder. Another possible factor is the wind, and by the direction of the smoke caused by the brief restart of the ship's engines it looked like the winds were coming from the ship's port (left) side. This would also explain why the crew dropped the port anchor in an attempt to either stop the ship or at least slow it down. In any case, anyone who is suggesting this was a terrorist attack so far that has not proven the case, at least one orchestrated by the ship's crew. There are several big flags to me suggesting that this might be all a big accident. First the ship was pretty much in contact with emergency services near the time of the crash, second this was in the dead of night so that if this was a terrorist attack it was a very stupid one if the goal was to kill as many people as possible, sure there was still a lot of traffic on the bridge at the time, but it's not like this was early morning rush hour. Now maybe if the terrorist's goals (if any) were to cause economic turmoil, well they did that part, but it would be more of an inconvenience in the long run.
In my opinion those pilot boats should never have left that ship especially with the type of cargo it was carrying. As long as the pilots were on board I thought the pilot boat stayed with the ship. I can now see why people are call it a conspiracy.
The Chances Of A Very Large Ship - Powerless - On A Very Large Body Of Water - Hitting A Very Very Small Object - Head On - BOW First - You Figure the Odds
Be a whole different administration before we get a final report. Theres another good channel called "What's up with shipping" that does some really good breakdowns. I highly recommend you go watch some of his videos too.
Forgot to add, the point to recommending that channel, he talked about who would pay, insurance claims, ownership and how long the investigation is likely to take.
The Anchor being dropped on port side gave the ship a pivot as rear lost power and basically swung out into channel. They slowed Bow but mass of ship kept going. Easy to 2 nd guess from across the country But I have not heard a video with a ship Horn blasting or giving 5 blasts like when you get in front of one in harbors as they come / go . The ship almost drug anchor over a high pressure gas line , and might even be on top of it . Imagine the mushroom cloud and Fox blame game had they gotten that fireball . Their crack oil expert is blaming dirty gas, Funny , but diesel tanks usually grow algae that makes a skin on surface of fuel , acts like plastic wrap and a motor will run until it plugs pickups. The Adults will find evidence of something wrong before long .
The anchor was dropped to stop the slow her down and stop the swing to STBD. The 5 blasts are to express the doubt about the other maneuver, however in this case with all the chaos, you'll not think about the horn and focus on other important actions.
So you want to say only US flagged ships can only enter US ports. Because the Jones act doesn't say that. The Jones act doesn't allow goods to be shipped between US ports on foreign flagged ships. That is not the same as a foreign flagged ship coming or leaving to a country outside the USA.
My 2 cents..why sail a vessel that size and that time when most everybody would have been combating fatigue..People have been mentioning the Captain a lot and hardly about the two American Pilots..as if an Indian Captain can give orders to an American Pilot..People say tugs are expensive..tugs in attendance would have avoided this most expensive maritime tragedy in history..Cause of the black smoke, I believe engine was put in Full Astern..engine overspeed thus shutting down everything..They might be lucky if Main Engine isn't damaged.
Look yes it could have been avoided its was traveling at 8 knots means got 5 minutes before the collision. Its was steerable as it was following the channel course once it went astern n drop anchor its head towards the bridge column anchor dragged sw astern went to port with full ahead head went strike the column. Theoretically the sip was traveling at speed of 48000 or 49000 feet / hour. About 800 ft /minutes 14 ft Second. N she was 3300ft away from the Column. But I do know how far her head was away from that column. N what was her rudder position but even its engine stopped its still be steerable with it 8 knots wake at the rudder . So I can't say about the judgement of the pilot at the last moment s . Its my thinking its only my opinion IF THE PILOT WOULD KEPT ITS COURSE AT 0124 EVEN THE BLACK OUT HAPPENED HE MIGHT HAD PASSED UNDER BRIDGE MAJOR DAMAGE OF SHIP THE COLLAPSE MIGHT HAD BEEN AVOIDED. ALL MY ASSUMPTIONS ARE AFTER LOOKING THE LAST 5 MINUTES OF THE VIDEO WHEN APPROACHING THE BRIDGE N TILL THE BRIDGE FELL DOWN . NOTHING ELSE ITS MY ASSUMPTIONS ALSO LOOKING AT THE NTSB TIME LINES N STEERING LOGS
After Blockout, Normally Chief Enginer will call the Bridge & will ask to put the Throttle to STOP. Once the Main Power is back you can see on the Throttle panel MAIN ENGINE READY TO START, then you can START MAIN ENGINE.
Suddenly everyone is an expert. I don't know who you are and on which vessels you've worked on but trust me sitting and telling a story and being on ship where the things happened are two different thing. You can't judge anyone or anything. I have loads of experience at sea but still there is something new to learn always. Machines fail, humans panic etc etc. Anything can happen, it's natural. Anyways, it's human nature to speak specially when you have a stupid platform where you can say anything and get away. Carry on mate, nothing to loose.
In hindsight, considering the actions taken during the power outage crisis, ie selecting reverse, dropping an anchor, etc, the best course of action may have been to do nothing and allow it to continue on the straight line course through the bridge steerage channel. 116 kilotonnes would have ensured that even without engine power the vessel would have contiued to obey one of Newton's laws and continued on in a straight line ........and miss the bridge. Then start fixing the problems in relatively safe waters.
"Machines fail, human panic, etc etc". Let's see: Machines fail because .... poor maintenance or overdue, lack of knowledge when you operate it. If you panic, you don't deserve to have managerial COC. So, there were "loads of mistakes" made by ship's high rank officers, i.e captain and chief engineer.
