I guess to bring this around to the actual disaster, i saw several old news articles on Reddit where several people said it was an inevitability that a boat hits the bridge. And that was when it was built back in the 70s i believe, when boats were significantly smaller. So how do we stop this from happening again here or elsewhere? Mandatory tugs to maneuver the boats seems like a relatively easy solution to implement, but who pays for the additional boats and crew?
My very uninformed guess would be that tug boat operations are probably a comparatively small portion of a shipping conglomerates overall costs. So they should be able to absorb the costs quite easily.
...and then they'll charge exorbitant overages downstream because hey, fuck everybody. $$$$$
Yeah I agree with others that this isn't a flaw in bridge design.
seems to me important things to consider here are:
-Why did the ship lose power. Was this design flaw, was it negligence in maintenance practices? Was it human error of the crew? Early indications seem to be that no, it was not human error, but it has to be considered.
-Does it make sense to have huge ships like this in these kinds of waterways? Does maximum allowed ship size need to be reassessed for waterways? Near bridges? If this had happened to a smaller cargo ship, would the damage have been as severe? Do our practices need to change.
my immediate assumption about the boat side of things is that:
- they did not have enough crew to properly maintain the ship
- they did not have enough crew to mitigate the damage sustained by the ship/whatever caused it to lose power at the dock
- they were overtaxed and didn't follow some sort of procedure once power was lost/regained that would have indicated the ship could not truly function.
That's without knowing the full report, but when something like this happens, and it happens in some sort of hugely capitalistic endeavor like massive international shipping, the answer is always "the corporation ran massive inherent risks with their labor to make things cheaper to run".
To me it seems clear that the crew may be initially blamed, but the cause will run to the decisions made by the owners.
Hello from your local shipbuilder
M/V Dali was appropriately crewed, and while ship crew does typically perform some low level maintenance, all major ship maintenance/overhaul/etc. would be done in a yard.
And let me point out, no amount of crew or crew training would mitigate the fact that the ship's Regulatory required emergency power system didn't fucking turn on
+23
Options
TonkkaSome one in the club tonightHas stolen my ideas.Registered Userregular
Should probably be noted that prop-walk (which is what kicks a ship's stern to one side or the other when you throw it into reverse) is something that virtually all boats experience regardless of size/class.
Also, throwing something hard into reverse creates temporary cavitation where the prop is spinning but there is no water for it to bite...and thus also reduces time that things are under control.
I know that there are a lot of assumptions going on regarding the crew, etc, but until we hear otherwise, let's give them the benefit of the doubt, yea? Shit breaks. Shit on boats break at an even higher rate. Even the most rigorous maintenance schedule can't guarantee a 100% up runtime.
What Zip said, plus I'll add it's highly unlikely that they'd have put the ship propulsion to stern/reverse (if the ship even had that capability, commercial ships rely on tugs/tenders to move them backwards and usually don't have a transmission at all)
Cuz keep in mind that propellers+rudders+engines+gearing+bearings are designed to move super efficiently in one specific direction, making it do the opposite on short notice is an absolute shitshow--you ever try to shift from 3rd gear to Reverse in a manual transmission car?
Now do that with an engine the size of a two bedroom house.
From what I've read about the ship, to go in reverse they would literally have had to stop the engine completely and restart it, turning in the opposite direction. This ship is direct drive, no transmission or gearing.
Doesn't sound like a quick process. Also makes me doubt that they attempted to go in reverse.
0
Options
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
How do tiny tug boats tow massive container ships?
Yeah I agree with others that this isn't a flaw in bridge design.
seems to me important things to consider here are:
-Why did the ship lose power. Was this design flaw, was it negligence in maintenance practices? Was it human error of the crew? Early indications seem to be that no, it was not human error, but it has to be considered.
-Does it make sense to have huge ships like this in these kinds of waterways? Does maximum allowed ship size need to be reassessed for waterways? Near bridges? If this had happened to a smaller cargo ship, would the damage have been as severe? Do our practices need to change.
my immediate assumption about the boat side of things is that:
- they did not have enough crew to properly maintain the ship
- they did not have enough crew to mitigate the damage sustained by the ship/whatever caused it to lose power at the dock
- they were overtaxed and didn't follow some sort of procedure once power was lost/regained that would have indicated the ship could not truly function.
That's without knowing the full report, but when something like this happens, and it happens in some sort of hugely capitalistic endeavor like massive international shipping, the answer is always "the corporation ran massive inherent risks with their labor to make things cheaper to run".
To me it seems clear that the crew may be initially blamed, but the cause will run to the decisions made by the owners.
Hello from your local shipbuilder
M/V Dali was appropriately crewed, and while ship crew does typically perform some low level maintenance, all major ship maintenance/overhaul/etc. would be done in a yard.
And let me point out, no amount of crew or crew training would mitigate the fact that the ship's Regulatory required emergency power system didn't fucking turn on
Yeah I agree with others that this isn't a flaw in bridge design.
seems to me important things to consider here are:
-Why did the ship lose power. Was this design flaw, was it negligence in maintenance practices? Was it human error of the crew? Early indications seem to be that no, it was not human error, but it has to be considered.
-Does it make sense to have huge ships like this in these kinds of waterways? Does maximum allowed ship size need to be reassessed for waterways? Near bridges? If this had happened to a smaller cargo ship, would the damage have been as severe? Do our practices need to change.
my immediate assumption about the boat side of things is that:
- they did not have enough crew to properly maintain the ship
- they did not have enough crew to mitigate the damage sustained by the ship/whatever caused it to lose power at the dock
- they were overtaxed and didn't follow some sort of procedure once power was lost/regained that would have indicated the ship could not truly function.
That's without knowing the full report, but when something like this happens, and it happens in some sort of hugely capitalistic endeavor like massive international shipping, the answer is always "the corporation ran massive inherent risks with their labor to make things cheaper to run".
To me it seems clear that the crew may be initially blamed, but the cause will run to the decisions made by the owners.
Hello from your local shipbuilder
M/V Dali was appropriately crewed, and while ship crew does typically perform some low level maintenance, all major ship maintenance/overhaul/etc. would be done in a yard.
And let me point out, no amount of crew or crew training would mitigate the fact that the ship's Regulatory required emergency power system didn't fucking turn on
The ship was inspected by the Coast Guard in September of last year as well and they found no deficiencies. I dunno how often they are supposed to get inspected, but it feels like they were keeping up with what they needed to get done. Everything seems to be pointing to freak accident which is frustrating because it doesn't give us a bad guy to rage at. Well other than capitalism for making fuck off huge ships a thing.
Backup power can be finicky. A place I've worked in had multiple redundant power solutions and still lost power when the generator that had been tested the month before burned up when the main utility cut out because it hadn't been run long enough to unfoul itself during the regular tests. Tested fine for years but then in use destroyed itself, not even because the facilities staff were unaware of the risk of fouling, just that they thought they'd done it long enough and were incorrect.
0
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
i forget exactly when/where i saw it but it was a cutaway drawing or diagram something like this where my brain finally clicked on what a tugboat is
+12
Options
Tynnanseldom correct, never unsureRegistered Userregular
The little boat that only does leg day
+23
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Posts
it'll never work
well I've just read the Broken Earth trilogy, and
Wrap it in a t shirt, also solves the problem of “how to land it” by giving it a soft outer cushion
Finally, we have a use-case for BIG SHIRTS.
My very uninformed guess would be that tug boat operations are probably a comparatively small portion of a shipping conglomerates overall costs. So they should be able to absorb the costs quite easily.
...and then they'll charge exorbitant overages downstream because hey, fuck everybody. $$$$$
Our leaders are comfortable with the current capitalist model costing a few lives now and then
well yeah, drift compatibility is for giant robots not giant boats
Yeah but this one is gonna cost several hundred million in repairs and lost shipping revenue
Hello from your local shipbuilder
M/V Dali was appropriately crewed, and while ship crew does typically perform some low level maintenance, all major ship maintenance/overhaul/etc. would be done in a yard.
And let me point out, no amount of crew or crew training would mitigate the fact that the ship's Regulatory required emergency power system didn't fucking turn on
What Zip said, plus I'll add it's highly unlikely that they'd have put the ship propulsion to stern/reverse (if the ship even had that capability, commercial ships rely on tugs/tenders to move them backwards and usually don't have a transmission at all)
Cuz keep in mind that propellers+rudders+engines+gearing+bearings are designed to move super efficiently in one specific direction, making it do the opposite on short notice is an absolute shitshow--you ever try to shift from 3rd gear to Reverse in a manual transmission car?
Now do that with an engine the size of a two bedroom house.
Doesn't sound like a quick process. Also makes me doubt that they attempted to go in reverse.
Nothing but respect for *my* local shipbuilder
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
The ship was inspected by the Coast Guard in September of last year as well and they found no deficiencies. I dunno how often they are supposed to get inspected, but it feels like they were keeping up with what they needed to get done. Everything seems to be pointing to freak accident which is frustrating because it doesn't give us a bad guy to rage at. Well other than capitalism for making fuck off huge ships a thing.
Smol but stronk
Yep. Pretty much a steering wheel strapped to a huge engine, that happens to float.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Mr. Tug, what would you say your passions in life are?
"Well, I push. And sometimes I pull."
Anything else?
"I push. And sometimes I pull."
If your legs can turn 360, call a doctor. You might be an xman.
PSN:Furlion
It’s from this, I think: https://sasquatchbooks.com/little-bigfoot/books/working-boats/
He used the appropriate maritime signal flag.
Yes, he was an enormous nerd and probably the smartest guy in the school.
By basically being floating engines with a seat on them. Also generally working in teams. Tugboats are hilariously overpowered for their size.
The hammerhead starship in Rogue One is basically a tug in that scene.