New York Disaster Crane - Massive Engineering Mistakes - S05 EP503 - Engineering Documentary 

It is : Note the feeble "analysis" of the "structural engineer"! The question is why not dismantle each unit and raise each small piece of each unit up to the roof with pulleys -- then re-assemble each air conditioning unit on the roof? (Answer : To save money. Who was it in the NYC administration authorised the use of this crane -- for that particular purpose?)

Yea it almost looks like it'll topple over at any moment. Oh mmmm, well done humans. If only helicopters had been invented. Oh mmmm shit, anyone know what time it is.

Where do they find these types? (Who was it in the NY city administration who gave a permit to the operator of that crane? Did the clerk who issued the permit ask the crane operator what the crane was going to be lifting? How heavy? Did the clerk check the specifications of the crane itself? What was the crane's maximum load? At what extension? Did the operator have a credential? Training? Had the operator of the crane ever operator a crane of that size? Was an inspector sen down to the site to check compliance? What is the penalty for non-compliance? $50 fine?)

The 'analysis' given by the 'engineers' interviewed merely begs the question. The 'engineers' -- (and a 'physicist') -- merely harp on the fact that such an operation is difficult. The 'explanation for the crane collapse -- (i.e. that such cranes are susceptible to gusts of wind) -- merely begs the question of why not use a safer method of getting the air conditioning units up to the roof? Why not dismantle each air conditioning unit, and then raise each small piece of each unit up to the roof using pulleys and chains? Was it done to save money? Who was it in the NYC administration who approved the use of that crane? What are the guidelines for using such a crane?

not sure biringing a multi giant tone crane with multi heavy truck is really a cheap methode to do it. As other suggested with an helicoptere, don't thik it would be a better option, in each case, if there's mistake it can lead to catastrophique failure. More than the greedy hands, a better crane rig would have been the best choice. But much more heavy crane can't turn with their counter weight way farther than the pivotal point, but far more stable. And no @victorsauvage1890, multi tons air conditionning unit are not meant to be bring into 100 parts to the top of the building.

It is not a normal occurrence apparently lol.

@@DaleDix He is covering up! The point is not merely that the crane collapsed -- the point is not even that the NYC administrators were incompetent. The point is that the documentary film maker and his 'structural engineer', ('Mabury'), made no attempt to investigate why the crane collapsed? Did the crane operator pay for this documentary?

Now you're talking! You have hit on the real question! This is why these 'disaster' documentaries are so important. To quote the NTSB chief, "There are no accidents. Every one of the events which we investigate is preventable." (Speaking at a press conference (1990?) following the derailment of a train carrying flammable material, which resulted in a conflagration in the vicinity of a residential suburb.)

@@victorsauvage1890 I do agree, that there are very few "pure accidents", but they do happen. On the other hand, I really do hate the "Pilot Error" excuse in air crashes. It is a lazy cover excuse. For example, it appears (from the TV movie, if it was accurate on this point, or was that point "hollywood") that NTSB was ready to hang the ditching in river instead of landing at airport on Sully Sullenburger as "pilot error". Unfortunately for them he was alive and was willing to dispute their assumptions about how a real pilot acts in an emergency. I don't know if the event you cited was characterized as an "accident chain". NTSB has used that description in other accidents. It is where multiple failures have to occur sequentially to overcome the "normal" safety measures. In this situation it would include things like (I'm sure pro's can list more points): * "old" bridge designed with inadequate pier protection * "single point of failure" bridge design * politicians too dumb to learn from the 1980 Florida bridge failure (and 36 other similar failures since 1960?) * politicians too cheap to fix the the problem identified by the 1980 crash * ship bigger than the bridge was designed to handle * ship engine failure at "right" time * ship steering failure at the "right" time Look at the "engine failure" in this accident. The redundant, fail over electrical system worked, triggering the backups as needed. But something "unexpected" / "accidental" prevented the generated electricity from being usable. I'm looking forward to learn what they figured out caused the power problems. I'm guessing it will be something esoteric, with it's own failure chain. My uninformed guess is that there was something in the reefer power circuits. Probably related to the power problems the THOUGHT they fixed at the dock.

Ha ha! (But seriously . . .)

What is your connection to Banijay?

Oh and we do have an early warning system now too. I have gotten three warnings from it: One was from an earthquake that was too far away for me to feel (which was great because it was like an earthquake drill), the second one was from an earthquake that I didn't feel because I was driving in the car, and the third was from an earthquake that was so close that I was already heading for cover before I got the warning. The remarkable thing about this last warning was that the earthquake was something like 3 miles away from where I was and, while the major shaking couldn't beat the warning, the warning came so quickly that I hadn't even fully taken shelter before my phone was yelling, "Earthquake!" at me. The difficulty with early warnings in California is that our major faults are on shore or so near to shore that you just simply won't get a warning if a really big earthquake starts too near to where you are and most of the populated areas are very near to the San Andreas Fault and the other major faults we have here. Early warnings will save many lives further away from the epicenter but, for whoever ends up being right by it, the shaking will likely be the worst in that area, and your warning will still be the start of the shaking. So people should be aware that you might not get a warning and, if you have MyShake on your phone and you feel shaking without having received a warning, assume the earthquake is close. Don't panic because panic never leads to any wise decision but waste no time taking shelter just in case you drew the short straw of being very close to where the big one we're all waiting for strikes. However, most of the time, you'll be completely fine in an earthquake and the most it will have done to you is to raise your blood pressure and heart rate but you'd definitely want to be someone who took shelter if you get unlucky and things start falling in your building or worse. Doesn't hurt much to duck under a table for a minute or so.

The locals would no doubt see it as a sign of approval.

He's trying to 'play it down'.

they were attempting to lower the crane because of the wind speed, NOT ignore it and keep working. Try not to be a doomsdayer

@@larryfreeman7979 Gosh! This is remarkable. So what you're saying is that flow of air -- (gale force, say) -- across the surface of the extended crane arm may exert sufficient pressure ('force'?) upon the extended crane arm to destabilise the crane! But then that raises the question of Why an experienced crane operator -- who was fully aware of the effects of air flow on on the extended crane arm -- would attempt to operate the crane on a day in which high winds were forecast? Is it possible that the crane operator decided to take the risk of operating on a day on which high winds were forecast from motives of avarice?

@@victorsauvage1890 he clearly made a mistake as stated in the video for the 4 degrees extra of the main arm + the wind speed. Accident are always avoidable but it's the principle of an accident, successive small action from a mistake leading to a catastrophic fail. Of course the cran should have been lowered sooner or raised with much less wind speed.

No their're perfectly aligned on their centere, as he demonstrated. He don't says flushed, just align, both leveled, in lined with their centered screw connection, as the analogy for threaded connection alignement... just plein simple demonstration with simple on hands object.

i can think of one bridge in the US in dire need of repair 🙄

If they are built like US houses I'm not surprised they're falling apart! There's bridges in the UK with no problems that have been there longer than the US has been a country hahaha

@@cosmoshfa88savant66 I'd laugh but them workers mate fuckin old bill should warned em they have loudspeakers in there cruisers in US. Could of saved everyone or given em a chance at least. Also that traffic cam supposedly cut out before impact. Yeah right...

@@robertmather7696 Humber bridge has big piers round in its towers you'd never nick that down 50yr old too.

​@patrickbarrett3623 the humber Bridge would sink the ship if it hit it. They know how to build things up north haha

The doco vis paid for by the crane company which caused the collapse in NYC

😂

and they put a photo of the stadium at 14:20, cheeky editor.

Retards

Because they are strange I guess

Gay

It is a sham!