Francis Keys bridge hit by ship. Bridge collapses, mass casualty event.

I think they lost other recorders due to power.....probably AC.
I think anything that had a PC behind it was dead. Things like the chart plotter, the engine and auxiliary control systems, etc. The DC electronics apparently were unaffected. The navigation electronics is a mix of DC and AC, networked via NMEA bus. So some of it would stay up, and some of it would drop off.

The vessel data recorder cut out, but it came back up. So maybe it had a UPS, and just needed to reboot...
 
I think anything that had a PC behind it was dead. Things like the chart plotter, the engine and auxiliary control systems, etc. The DC electronics apparently were unaffected. The navigation electronics is a mix of DC and AC, networked via NMEA bus. So some of it would stay up, and some of it would drop off.

The vessel data recorder cut out, but it came back up. So maybe it had a UPS, and just needed to reboot...
Sounds convenient enough if fowel play was possibly afoot. Hmmm.
 
Sounds convenient enough if fowel play was possibly afoot. Hmmm.
I have no reason to suspect foul play. What AyeCantSeeYou said is how I'm seeing it- some sort of mechanical failure- bad fuel or whatever, and just really bad timing.

5 minutes either side, they would probably be dealing with nothing more than a grounded ship...
 
I’m talking infrastructure in general. MAGA doesn’t do anything that really matters, preferring to spend their time on phony impeachments and running their own internal civil war. :popcorn:
Repairing or replacing that bridge was never forecast as it was doing fine until the ship took out the support. Even then, it is the responsibility of the state, not the federal government.
 
The captain wasn't directing the ship at the time of the crash, the licensed "pilot" was calling the shots.
There is no talk of incompetence when the person is tested, experienced, and "licensed" to to the task.
Tully comes to mind. Who would you have liked to be flying that plane, a token of some kind?

Looking to play the race card, or gender card, or some other low-IQ card is just stupid.

"Sully" you mean!
 
I never claimed a grounding was suggested by anyone, I said it's possible. The ship draws 49'4" fully laden, and the channel is 50' deep at mean low water.

The ship was NOT fully laden, so it was not drawing it's full draft, but outside the shipping lanes, grounding is a definite possibility.

And it was outside the shipping lane when it hit the bridge, so I cannot rule out grounding before the actual collision.
I loved the initial reports said that the ship had sunk, and I knew that was wrong in about a millisecond.
 
I think anything that had a PC behind it was dead. Things like the chart plotter, the engine and auxiliary control systems, etc. The DC electronics apparently were unaffected. The navigation electronics is a mix of DC and AC, networked via NMEA bus. So some of it would stay up, and some of it would drop off.

The vessel data recorder cut out, but it came back up. So maybe it had a UPS, and just needed to reboot...
NTSB woman briefing claim....was referring recorders....don't remember which ones.
 
---Cargo Giant That Took Out Bridge Had Silenced Whistleblower Who Warned About Safety---
 
No.

Again you make assumptions based on nothing.
That's as unwise as making assumptions based on saying it ran ok aground.
Best you stop trying.
So a ship which has run aground is still drifting with the current?

I didn’t say it ran aground you dumb-ass. I responded to someone who suggested that it did.
 
The starboard turn likely has a simple, innocent explanation. Navigating a channel or waterway requires constant course corrections; usually no more than 5 to 10 degrees port or starboard.
That is true that course corrections are sometimes necessary.
But in this example wouldn't a course correction to Port be advisable?

Thank you for considering the question, it shows that you're not in denial of the facts of the situation
If the ship happened to lose the rudder while making a course correction to starboard, the rudder is then stuck in that configuration and the ship will simply continue the starboard turn by inertia.
That may be true, or it might not. The computer could be programmed to return the helm to neutral.
But again, this indicates that you are thinking!

There may be other reasons for the course change to starboard that are completely innocent.
 
You keep repeating yourself as if you love your own words

Repeating them doesn’t make them any truer

Tell your bullshit to Vlad
There's also a possibility that the pilot ordered a hard turn to starboard in an attempt to run aground.

Then power went down and the rudder returned to neutral. If it didn't return to neutral the ship might have safely run aground?
 

Forum List

Back
Top