BOOM. New Close Up Video Shows Dali Maneuvering into Position, Stopping, Ramming Column Under Power

[Donald H]

Go back to your conspiracy theories idiot.

YOur deliberate twisting of the facts is suspicious but it could be carelessness on not timing the flashing lights. Normal speed of video shows us about 24-28 flashes per minute and speeded up show about 120 per minute. Have somebody do the math for you, to clear yourself of suspicion.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

I can't believe that there is no manual anchor drop procedure...
There is on every Navy vessel I've ever been on...
In a 50 foot deep bay that would have stopped that ship cold...

There is a manual drop procedure. And they did. But traveling at 8 knots, a ship that size would take more than a mile to come to a complete stop.

 

[para bellum]

YOur deliberate twisting of the facts is suspicious but it could be carelessness on not timing the flashing lights. Normal speed of video shows us about 24-28 flashes per minute and speeded up show about 120 per minute. Have somebody do the math for you, to clear yourself of suspicion.

Oh STFU. No one cares about your BS.

Irrelevant the exact speed-up, it's a cropped and sped-up video that does not reflect the real-time motion of the ship.

It is actually 6x based on the 10 seconds between the first power outage at :03 and the lights coming back on at :13. That was 59 seconds on the VDR.

 

[Robert W]

I can't believe that there is no manual anchor drop procedure...
There is on every Navy vessel I've ever been on...
In a 50 foot deep bay that would have stopped that ship cold...

I have never sailed. I was on a Chris Craft one time because the owner asked me to go to the SF Bay with him. I have watched a good many ship videos on YouTube. I was wondering how a ship that huge would wrongly navigate a part of the Bay it was leaving from, given it had pilots on it. I read it had 2 on the ship.

I saw a video of a captain saying the wreck really screwed up.
I spent time in my youth working on Bridges. But just the foundations of them. If the ship as reported was moving at 9 kts. when in the area of the bridge do they keep that speed up? I did not see lights from the ship aimed at the Bridge. So question how the ship knows it's exact position? I expect the answer is GPS. And this makes it stranger than fiction it hit the bridge where it did.

What if the damage done by the ship was done on purpose?

 

[Robert W]

There is a manual drop procedure. And they did. But traveling at 8 knots, a ship that size would take more than a mile to come to a complete stop.

This tells me that the ship should have directives to allow it to stop were it aimed at a pier.

 

[Donald H]

Oh STFU. No one cares about your BS.

Irrelevant the exact speed-up, it's a cropped and sped-up video that does not reflect the real-time motion of the ship.

Thank you.

You will be watched closely for anymore signs that you're attempting to tamper with evidence. Undue fits of anger will also be considered to be suspicious.

For this time, you can just claim carelessness.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

This tells me that the ship should have directives to allow it to stop were it aimed at a pier.

Not possible in that time/distance. The ship, while not being the biggest on the planet, was full of cargo containers. Inertia takes over. Had the ship's engines regained power , they may have been able to reverse the engines and throw the rudder over harder while dropping the anchor. Maybe they could have skirted the bridge abutments and circled back into the port. However, there didn't look to be a lot of maneuvering room.

 

[Donald H]

There is a manual drop procedure. And they did. But traveling at 8 knots, a ship that size would take more than a mile to come to a complete stop.

Right Jack, and that's important info for most here on this discussion.

 

[Rambunctious]

Ship going from 34 knots (~39 mph) to 0 knots in about 1.2 nautical miles.... and that ship was traveling at 8 knots and dragging an anchor which I can't see in the video... doesn't mean it wasn't dropped but you can't see the chain at all....

 

[para bellum]

Thank you.

You will be watched closely for anymore signs that you're attempting to tamper with evidence. Undue fits of anger will also be considered to be suspicious.

For this time, you can just claim carelessness.

Fuck off. You trash every one of these threads with your bullshit conspiracy theories.

Your pedantic attack of my estimate and the attempt to make it some kind of nefarious "tampering with evidence" just shows you have nothing of substance to contribute.

 

[Rambunctious]

Dali pilot rushed to drop anchor and pull ship's rudder

Clay Diamond, executive director of the American Pilots Association, said to CNN that the pilot quickly handed out a string of orders to try to prevent the catastrophe.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I convinced the Captain did everything he could to stop that ship... my question is why was it losing power?...

 

[para bellum]

Ship going from 34 knots (~39 mph) to 0 knots in about 1.2 nautical miles.... and that ship was traveling at 8 knots and dragging an anchor which I can't see in the video... doesn't mean it wasn't dropped but you can't see the chain at all....

Ship was never going at 34 kts, 22 is max.

It was doing a little over 8 kts when it lost power. It bled off about 1 kt in the 4 minutes it was "coasting". The anchor chain is clearly visible in the picture of the ship wedged under the bridge.

We don't know exactly when it was released, only that the order was given 2 minutes before the collision. They station crew on the bow for that purpose when they have no tug escort, so it would not have been a long delay, but who can say precisely...

 

[Donald H]

Fuck off. You trash every one of these threads with your bullshit conspiracy theories.

Your pedantic attack of my estimate and the attempt to make it some kind of nefarious "tampering with evidence" just shows you have nothing of substance to contribute.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt on your mistake being just carelessness.

 

[Robert W]

Not possible in that time/distance. The ship, while not being the biggest on the planet, was full of cargo containers. Inertia takes over. Had the ship's engines regained power , they may have been able to reverse the engines and throw the rudder over harder while dropping the anchor. Maybe they could have skirted the bridge abutments and circled back into the port. However, there didn't look to be a lot of maneuvering room.

OK, but it hit the Bridge. We all know all about that. And we know the ship had at least a pilot. A pilot who would know that path backwards and forward. It should not have hit the bridge. Even aside from the anchor condition, it's path was at the Bridge. Why? I recall seeing a video of it turning into the bridge. Again, what kind of pilot hits bridges?

 

[Rambunctious]

Ship was never going at 34 kts, 22 is max.

It was doing a little over 8 kts when it lost power. It bled off about 1 kt in the 4 minutes it was "coasting". The anchor chain is clearly visible in the picture of the ship wedged under the bridge.

We don't know exactly when it was released, only that the order was given 2 minutes before the collision. They station crew on the bow for that purpose when they have no tug escort, so it would not have been a long delay, but who can say precisely...


View attachment 926756

Oh I know that I was showing how much time it would take a ship of that size fully loaded to stop at 34 knots.... and the Dali was at best traveling at 8 knots and dragging an anchor...
Just an observation...

 

[Foxfyre]

I can't believe that there is no manual anchor drop procedure...
There is on every Navy vessel I've ever been on...
In a 50 foot deep bay that would have stopped that ship cold...

From what I've read, the captain tried to do that but when he realized they were headed for the bridge and could not regain power it was too late. He did radio for them to close the bridge which no doubt saved many lives. I honestly believe it was a pure accident and unintended.

 

[Rambunctious]

From what I've read, the captain tried to do that but when he realized they were headed for the bridge and could not regain power it was too late. He did radio for them to close the bridge which no doubt saved many lives. I honestly believe it was a pure accident and unintended.

I see that now with a link I found... The Captain acted as fast as he could have... now they must find out what caused the power to stop... so it doesn't happen again...

 

[Donald H]

Ship was never going at 34 kts, 22 is max.

And again, you are responsible for the confusion. Nobody suggested that the ship was travelling at 34 knots!

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

OK, but it hit the Bridge. We all know all about that. And we know the ship had at least a pilot. A pilot who would know that path backwards and forward. It should not have hit the bridge. Even aside from the anchor condition, it's path was at the Bridge. Why? I recall seeing a video of it turning into the bridge. Again, what kind of pilot hits bridges?

Each ship that sails out of a US port is required to have a local pilot guide it out of port. One who does indeed know the path forward and backward. It's maritime law in this country.

However, when you have a complete loss of power on a ship the size of the Chrysler Building in NYC that is traveling at 8 knots heading for a bridge, a ship like that doesn't turn or stop on a dime. It turned into the bridge because it lost power, they dropped the anchor and threw the rudder to port (I think). Between the tide current and inertia, it overran that bridge abutment.

 

[Robert W]

Each ship that sails out of a US port is required to have a local pilot guide it out of port. One who does indeed know the path forward and backward. It's maritime law in this country.

However, when you have a complete loss of power on a ship the size of the Chrysler Building in NYC that is traveling at 8 knots heading for a bridge, a ship like that doesn't turn or stop on a dime. It turned into the bridge because it lost power, they dropped the anchor and threw the rudder to port (I think). Between the tide current and inertia, it overran that bridge abutment.

I am no sailor but I am a pilot. We learn all the time as pilots that accidents will normally be blamed on us. I am not a ship pilot, but am an airplane pilot. I recall what you say. I recall some strange changes in steering. I do not yet know the precise times the power went off. But recall well the ship aimed at the bridge and it turned a tiny bit then back at the bridge.
Maybe ships pilots don't catch the blame airplane pilots catch.