CharlieO.
Guru
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2020
- Messages
- 1,805
- Location
- Lake Champlain Vermont, USA
- Vessel Name
- Luna C.
- Vessel Make
- 1977 Marine Trader 34DC
OOPS: 1989
Yes, I thought changes came about due to Captain Hazelwood.
OOPS: 1989
Yes, I thought changes came about due to Captain Hazelwood.
Unfortunate situation. That passage is deep around the bridge and its supports. Up here in New England most ships would run aground before they would threaten the supports of the bridges.
A typo. We lived in Alaska for 20 years thanks to Captain Hazelwood; I wouldn't have forgotten
I got my first boat job due to Hazelwood, spent the entire summer in PWS straight out of high school. My goal since then has been to return with my own boat. Getting close to fulfilling that goal.
My goal since then has been to return with my own boat. Getting close to fulfilling that goal.
"Ship over x years old"
? For you not yet 9 years old, like Dali, In witch case you will put her ? Old ship ?
There will be a need for people who don't understand the problem to act like they are solving the problem because it is an election year.
I know the Dali wasn't old, but it is a measure that could be easily adopted that would eventually sunset as older ships are retired. It is an easy idea for simple politicians to understand and is based on the logic that older ships are more prone to maintenance problems ( whether that's true or not ), which is easy for the public to accept.
90 years after a train hit a schoolbus in a white out blizzard in Utah at a crossing without any gates, every schoolbus in the country has to stop at a railroad crossing now. I guess I am getting cynical in my old age but I expect some sort of hamhanded, ineffective solution like that to arrise from this tragedy.
Thank you Jim and stand corrected. Took a moment to look at the vulnerable ones. Several have no fendering of any sort. Fortunately some aren’t up/downstream of a major port. Although a fair number of ROROs use west passage. You see some ships divert to east passage once out of the docking area. Still Naragansett bay and Boston/Charlestown seem at risk.Not a comprehensive list -- just what came quickly to mind:
Vulnerable -- deep water around one or both supports at the sides of the main channel:
Mount Hope Bridge
Claiborne Pell Newport Bridge
Jamestown Verrazzano Bridge
Tobin Bridge
Deer Isle Bridge
Piscataqua River Bridges (first two)
Sagadahoc Bridge (Kennebec River, Bath)
Base in shallow water, but close to deep water:
Bourne & Sagamore Bridges
Support bases well out of deep water
Braga Bridge, Fall River
Piscataqua River Bridge (I-95)
Jim
Lots of company assets heading to Baltimore now... My tug is the second one out of town headed to Baltimore with one of our crane barges and another deck barge in tow. Our largest crane is in tow ahead of them... The Chesapeake 1000. It will be a workhorse for this job.
See where 1100 Army Corps of Engineers personnel either are or might be assigned to help?
That should make an interesting chain of command....
Lots of company assets heading to Baltimore now... My tug is the second one out of town headed to Baltimore with one of our crane barges and another deck barge in tow. Our largest crane is in tow ahead of them... The Chesapeake 1000. It will be a workhorse for this job.
Thats my tug but I got off Wednesday morning for my normal 28 days offAre you on the Atlantic Salvor Jack?
John
Thats my tug but I got off Wednesday morning for my normal 28 days off
No expert on all the details..... and not sure how the vessel is rigged....
One expert suggested the thick puffs of smoke were the compressed air re-starts*of the engine.
I have never served on a Merchie, but USCG Cutters of all shapes and sizes from WWII vintage to Gas Turbines with variable pitch props never depended on power from or for the main propulsion. There was always one or more generators on the line or on hot standby, particularly when entering or exiting port. We also had guys with block and tackle in after steering to manually take over rudder control. Can't imagine that on the M/V Dali and not sure if the report of outgoing tide was true, at some point rudder alone wasn't going to be all that effective.
Also the "experts" are all over the map when it comes to tug assist. The ones I believe are the ones that say if the tugs weren't attached, the vessel going slower and the notification of exactly when and what was happening and what the pilot thought the vessel would need from the tugs...then the probability they could have averted the danger is definitely debatable. That the pilot had to determine what was going on...called for tug assist as well as notifying official to the threat of hitting the bridge and maintaining order as well as command for what he did have at hand like dropping anchor..... all that in several minutes is pretty overwhelming. Doable but would be impressive none the less.
I doubt switching fuels would be why an engine stoppage would occur unless of course operator error temporarily shut off all fuel.... I suspect the NTSB will figure out if engineroom operator error was pertinent or not.
...
And wouldn't it be ironic if the ship was put into reverse in an attempt to stop, yet that same action is what generated enough prop walk to veer the ship into the pier where it otherwise would have glided along in a straight line right under the bridge. Trying to stop would seem like the right call, so I can't see how anyone would fault the operators, yet in this case it may turn out to have been exactly the wrong thing to do.
There’s a decent article in today’s NYT. “Baltimore Investigation Turns to Ship’s Deadly Mechanical Failure“
Not sure if this link will work:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/30/...referringSource=articleShare&ugrp=c&sgrp=c-cb