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

[westwall]

I don't need to quote the spamming and vicious insults of those who need to deny the facts. If you at least understand that ships don't stop like your car, you may be able to contribute something.

If you're suggesting that the ship didn't gain back power, then you're not keeping up and so you're mostly interested in spamming and offering excuses similar to the Martians on 911.

Yes, they don't stop, but they turn relatively well when under power. When there was power why was there ZERO effort to turn away?

 

[Donald H]

A report I saw said the anchor dragged, but I ee no evidence that it was ever dropped.

Is the chain hanging down from the ship attached to the anchor?

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

I don't need to quote the spamming and vicious insults of those who need to deny the facts. If you at least understand that ships don't stop like your car, you may be able to contribute something.

If you're suggesting that the ship didn't gain back power, then you're not keeping up and so you're mostly interested in spamming and offering excuses similar to the Martians on 911.

Keeping up with what? Your conspiracy theories? I mean, I know it's the right folder and everything, but sorry, those aren't facts. It looks as if you've already made your mind up.
The ship lost power and never regained it. Now, the investigation will get to the bottom of why it lost power and never got it back via the backup generators...but that is to be determined.

Baltimore Investigation Turns to Ship’s Deadly Mechanical Failure

The Dali reported a power blackout and steering problems before hitting the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore. But what went wrong so far has not been explained.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Donald H]

Yes, they don't stop, but they turn relatively well when under power. When there was power why was there ZERO effort to turn away?

A relevant question!
There may be an easy answer but that doesn't suggest that the question doesn't need to be addressed.

Ships turn relatively well without power too.

 

[Donald H]

Keeping up with what? Your conspiracy theories? I mean, I know it's the right folder and everything, but sorry, those aren't facts. It looks as if you've already made your mind up.

What conspiracy theories?
You deserve to be tested once in order to show that you're worthy of being a part of this discussion.

The ship lost power and never regained it. Now, the investigation will get to the bottom of why it lost power and never got it back via the backup generators...but that is to be determined.

Don't form your own conclusions on account of them being satisfying.

Baltimore Investigation Turns to Ship’s Deadly Mechanical Failure

The Dali reported a power blackout and steering problems before hitting the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore. But what went wrong so far has not been explained.

www.nytimes.com

Can't see the link.

 

[westwall]

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....

Correct. The chain is straight down in the wreckage, had it been being dragged it would be almost parallel to the water because the hook would be far, far behind the ship.

 

[westwall]

A relevant question!
There may be an easy answer but that doesn't suggest that the question doesn't need to be addressed.

Ships turn relatively well without power too.

The rudder can't be turned without power. There is a manual tiller but those are very, very slow to operate.

 

[Donald H]

The rudder can't be turned without power. There is a manual tiller but those are very, very slow to operate.

You don't understand and it's not up to me to help you. Go ask your dad.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

What conspiracy theories?
You deserve to be tested once in order to show that you're worthy of being a part of this discussion.

Don't form your own conclusions on account of them being satisfying.

Can't see the link.

Well, then why don't you read an explanation from the people who actually study these things.
Everything I've read so far suggests mechanical failure. And a ship that heavy traveling at that rate of speed doesn't just stop and turn like a car.

What went wrong on the ship that hit the Baltimore bridge?

www.imeche.org

 

[Donald H]

Well, then why don't you read an explanation from the people who actually study these things.
Everything I've read so far suggests mechanical failure. And a ship that heavy traveling at that rate of speed doesn't just stop and turn like a car.

What went wrong on the ship that hit the Baltimore bridge?

www.imeche.org

Duhhhhhhhh!

 

[para bellum]

Yes, they don't stop, but they turn relatively well when under power. When there was power why was there ZERO effort to turn away?

The pilot issued steering commands, but there is nothing to suggest the rudder responded.

The main engine only drives the propeller, and they say it was never restarted.

The rudder is controlled by hydraulic rams, with separate pumps driven by electric motors in the rudder room. There is a port side system and a stbd side system (for redundancy), and the emergency generator is supposed to provide backup power to the rudder motors through the emergency panel.

Steering should not have failed - it's triple redundant. But it did, which is why they were looking at fuel as a possible culprit...

 

[westwall]

You don't understand and it's not up to me to help you. Go ask your dclod.

A good friend was Chief Engineer on several ships for APL, I know more about ship operations thanks to him, then you will ever know.

Dumbass.

 

[westwall]

The pilot issued steering commands, but there is nothing to suggest the rudder responded.

The main engine only drives the propeller, and they say it was never restarted.

The rudder is controlled by hydraulic rams, with separate pumps driven by electric motors in the rudder room. There is a port side system and a stbd side system (for redundancy), and the emergency generator is supposed to provide backup power to the rudder motors through the emergency panel.

Steering should not have failed - it's triple redundant. But it did, which is why they were looking at fuel as a possible culprit...

The APU uses a different fuel than the ship engine does. So, either ALL of the various types of fuel on board were contaminated, or the relays to direct power were non functional, or the entire system was hacked from an external agent, and it was intentional.

There are too many failures happening all at once to be credible as merely an accident.

 

[Rambunctious]

Correct. The chain is straight down in the wreckage, had it been being dragged it would be almost parallel to the water because the hook would be far, far behind the ship.

The anchor is up on the bow right?...

 

[westwall]

The anchor is up on the bow right?...

Yes, but once you drop it, it is going to drag the chain out with it, so even though it was dragging along the bottom, it would still be falling behind the ship as the chain pays out.

 

[Rambunctious]

Yes, but once you drop it, it is going to drag the chain out with it, so even though it was dragging along the bottom, it would still be falling behind the ship as the chain pays out.

Makes sense thanks...

 

[Donald H]

The pilot issued steering commands, but there is nothing to suggest the rudder responded.

Exactly the opposite of the appropriate steering commands you suggest were issued. That's where your denial is so obvious. You really don't want to acknowledge the abrupt turn to starboard.

The main engine only drives the propeller, and they say it was never restarted.

Not exactly true but I don't see any reason 'yet' to dwell on your probable error.

The rudder is controlled by hydraulic rams, with separate pumps driven by electric motors in the rudder room. There is a port side system and a stbd side system (for redundancy), and the emergency generator is supposed to provide backup power to the rudder motors through the emergency panel.

Your gap is in the transmission of the order from the wheelhouse to the ship's hydraulics.

Steering should not have failed - it's triple redundant. But it did, which is why they were looking at fuel as a possible culprit...

Which effectively would prove your claim of the ship's engine 'only' serving to drive the prop! right?

In fact, the triple redundancy you suggest wasn't effective and so it's good evidence saying that there wasn't triple ................

Allow us to continue with our discussion without your childish antics of insulting others and trying to close this down.

 

[westwall]

Makes sense thanks...

You're welcome. If the anchor chain parted (broke) close to the ship, it would dangle straight down, but there is no claim that that happened.

 

[para bellum]

The APU uses a different fuel than the ship engine does. So, either ALL of the various types of fuel on board were contaminated, or the relays to direct power were non functional, or the entire system was hacked from an external agent, and it was intentional.

There are too many failures happening all at once to be credible as merely an accident.

I don't think there are multiple fuels. The ship has 5 generators plus the main, and I believe they all use the same fuel, DMA/MGO ISO 8217.

Baltimore Bridge Collapse: Details Revealed on Boxship Dali's Bunkering History

FuelTrust says container ship Dali was burning MGO at the time of the incident.

shipandbunker.com

"Dali is propelled by a single low-speed two-stroke crosshead diesel engine coupled to a fixed-pitch propeller. Her main engine, a 9-cylinder MAN-B&W 9S90ME-C9.2[9] unit manufactured by Hyundai Heavy Industries under license, is rated 41,480 kW (55,630 hp) at 82.5 rpm.[2] Her service speed is 22 knots (41 km/h; 25 mph).[5] For maneuvering in ports, Dali has a single 3,000 kW (4,000 hp) bow thruster. Electricity is generated onboard by two 3,840 kW (5,150 hp) and two 4,400 kW (5,900 hp) auxiliary diesel generators.[4]"

 

[d0gbreath]

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...

They simply don't make Navy boats anywhere near that big.