In reply to ShawnG :
I wonder who reported it?
In reply to ShawnG :
I wonder who reported it?
Wally (Forum Supporter) said:I can't believe talk of ladies of the evening so rampant at one time it needed to be added to the list of filtered words. I miss all the fun.
I believe Esc0rt was a common term used by the overnight canoe flotillas.. thus it joined the autocorrect list for "targeting" ease.
Recon1342 said:Yay, numbers!
KE=1/2 mv squared.
Assuming MV Dali was at or near her deadweight tonnage of 116,851t, drifting at 8kt (her estimated speed at time of impact)-
gives us an impact force of 989,599,290 joules (989.5 mJ) or 729,890,979 ft-lbs of kinetic energy.
There's not a dolphin or piling out there that can withstand a direct hit from that kind of force.
I have to agree with a previous poster- focus on inspections and repairs that limit/eliminate the dead-in-water, drifting scenario.
Of course, the bridge did stop it - along with collapsing - so some sort of structure was quite capable of bringing that much momentum to a halt.
dculberson said:Recon1342 said:Yay, numbers!
KE=1/2 mv squared.
Assuming MV Dali was at or near her deadweight tonnage of 116,851t, drifting at 8kt (her estimated speed at time of impact)-
gives us an impact force of 989,599,290 joules (989.5 mJ) or 729,890,979 ft-lbs of kinetic energy.
There's not a dolphin or piling out there that can withstand a direct hit from that kind of force.
I have to agree with a previous poster- focus on inspections and repairs that limit/eliminate the dead-in-water, drifting scenario.
Of course, the bridge did stop it - along with collapsing - so some sort of structure was quite capable of bringing that much momentum to a halt.
So we'll build a sacrificial bridge adjacent, on either side. The "actual" bridge in the middle will continue to be tolled for cars, but the fender bridges on either side are free to use, at your own risk. Clears a traffic bottleneck, protects a bridge, employs a civil infrastructure company and a ton of bridge builders for 3 times the work. It's a win win win.
On a serious note, now that I've heard more about it (and specifically, for me working in commercial/industrial construction) it's freaking tragic that they knew, albeit for what sounds like a very short window, that the bridge was in danger AND that there were guys placing concrete out there. Assume there's a handful of people involved with a lot of feelings of helplessness and guilt about that little window of time, and what might have been, vs what happened.
I'm wondering why the bridge didn't sink the ship. Can't imagine all that weight of the bridge didn't destroy the ship and won't require all the containers to be lifted off somehow.
Is it likely to be resting on the bottom?
OHSCrifle said:I'm wondering why the bridge didn't sink the ship. Can't imagine all that weight of the bridge didn't destroy the ship and won't require all the containers to be lifted off somehow.
Is it likely to be resting on the bottom?
They've said it is currently resting on the bottom due to the weight on it, but I'd wager it will float when they pull wreckage and containers off.
Totally unqualified to give that opinion, but there it is.
In reply to OHSCrifle :
The Coast Guard is reporting that the bow of the ship is sitting on the bottom, it's unclear if there's any damage that would affect being able to re-float the ship after the remains of the bridge are removed from the ship.
Unrelated comment and update to something I mentioned earlier about my experience with US shipping standards vs. others. I read a report this morning that the total crew of the MV Dali is 21. That's total of all officers and crew for both deck and engineering departments. There's no way that small a crew can simultaneously operate, repair and maintain a vessel of that size with that few people and this is the international industry norm now. The ship I was on 40 years ago? Crew of 46 including myself and the other engineering cadet. Something isn't adding up.
11GTCS said:In reply to OHSCrifle :
The Coast Guard is reporting that the bow of the ship is sitting on the bottom, it's unclear if there's any damage that would affect being able to re-float the ship after the remains of the bridge are removed from the ship.
Unrelated comment and update to something I mentioned earlier about my experience with US shipping standards vs. others. I read a report this morning that the total crew of the MV Dali is 21. That's total of all officers and crew for both deck and engineering departments. There's no way that small a crew can simultaneously operate, repair and maintain a vessel of that size with that few people and this is the international industry norm now. The ship I was on 40 years ago? Crew of 46 including myself and the other engineering cadet. Something isn't adding up.
I certainly am much less informed on this matter than you are, but in my deep-dive rabbit hole, it seems that automated cockpits and propulsion are the primary reason for the crew reduction... but again, that is just what I read on some (not-reddit) articles I dug up.
But I totally agree with you- it just seems like such a small proportionate staff for something so physically massive. And again, in the 'intermittent and random electrical blackout' scenario, how in the heck are a handful of people going to go about troubleshooting a 1000' ship weighed down with nearly 20Kt of merchandise? It just seems so strange to me. I'm sure it's a $$ decision, as ultimately all things are... but still. Yikes.
golfduke said:11GTCS said:In reply to OHSCrifle :
The Coast Guard is reporting that the bow of the ship is sitting on the bottom, it's unclear if there's any damage that would affect being able to re-float the ship after the remains of the bridge are removed from the ship.
Unrelated comment and update to something I mentioned earlier about my experience with US shipping standards vs. others. I read a report this morning that the total crew of the MV Dali is 21. That's total of all officers and crew for both deck and engineering departments. There's no way that small a crew can simultaneously operate, repair and maintain a vessel of that size with that few people and this is the international industry norm now. The ship I was on 40 years ago? Crew of 46 including myself and the other engineering cadet. Something isn't adding up.
I certainly am much less informed on this matter than you are, but in my deep-dive rabbit hole, it seems that automated cockpits and propulsion are the primary reason for the crew reduction... but again, that is just what I read on some (not-reddit) articles I dug up.
But I totally agree with you- it just seems like such a small proportionate staff for something so physically massive. And again, in the 'intermittent and random electrical blackout' scenario, how in the heck are a handful of people going to go about troubleshooting a 1000' ship weighed down with nearly 20Kt of merchandise? It just seems so strange to me. I'm sure it's a $$ decision, as ultimately all things are... but still. Yikes.
Good friend growing up Dad was chief engineer on said ships. He talked all the time about new systems reducing crew, and not in glowing terms (but how much of that distaste was rooted in fear for his and coworker's jobs?) Have lost touch with said friend or I'd ping him for the up to date perspective, though I'm sure his dad has long since retired.
He brought us home a 14ft skiff with a 15hp Johnson they found floating off the coast of Brazil and he managed to get on the ship he was on and offloaded at Port. Ended up at my house so 14 year old me and my buddy could try our hands at fiberglass repairs. Buddy's dad already had the motor running by the time they got back to the US. Said the key was marvel mystery oil in the cylinders and just slowly working it free.
golfduke said:I'm sure a lot of this is a Time is Money situation, but it seems like that's a pretty big risk to take for the sake of keeping a schedule.
Unfortunately, I live this every day - managers accepting risks to keep a schedule. Fortunately, what I do just involves money and doesn't risk lives. So I can 100% believe they got the ship out of the port and into the channel believing the crew would be able to fix the power issues while underway.
11GTCS said:In reply to OHSCrifle :
The Coast Guard is reporting that the bow of the ship is sitting on the bottom, it's unclear if there's any damage that would affect being able to re-float the ship after the remains of the bridge are removed from the ship.
Unrelated comment and update to something I mentioned earlier about my experience with US shipping standards vs. others. I read a report this morning that the total crew of the MV Dali is 21. That's total of all officers and crew for both deck and engineering departments. There's no way that small a crew can simultaneously operate, repair and maintain a vessel of that size with that few people and this is the international industry norm now. The ship I was on 40 years ago? Crew of 46 including myself and the other engineering cadet. Something isn't adding up.
Oh it completely adds up. If you're a Finance Bro.
Look at literally every other industry out there. Everything is being cut to the bone in order to maximize profit. It's the exact same thing that's going on with Boeing right now. It's just finally starting to hit industries where it's impossible to hide the mistakes that it causes.
In reply to golfduke :
That's why we have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience#:~:text=Flag%20of%20convenience%20(FOC)%20is,country%2C%20called%20the%20flag%20state.
Nifty. Isn't it?
NermalSnert (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to golfduke :
That's why we have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience#:~:text=Flag%20of%20convenience%20(FOC)%20is,country%2C%20called%20the%20flag%20state.
Nifty. Isn't it?
Yuck. So basically, if that Wiki is accurate and I'm interpreting correctly, Flag of Convenience is basically the financial and seaworthiness equivalent to the Cayman Islands Bank Accounts in finance. Fly the flag of the country that will cost you the least in terms of money and/or hassle.
That's unfortunate.
Edit: That was wrong.
"Legally, the master has full responsibility for the safe navigation of their vessel, even when a pilot is on board. If they have clear grounds that the pilot may jeopardize the safety of navigation, they can relieve the pilot from their duties and ask for another pilot, or, if not required to have a pilot on board, navigate the vessel without one. In every case, during the time passed aboard for operation, the pilot will remain under the master's authority, and always out of the "ship's command chain." The pilot remains aboard as an important and indispensable part of the bridge team.[14] Only in transit of the Panama Canal does the pilot have full responsibility for the navigation of the vessel"
In reply to Wally (Forum Supporter) :
It's more due to my E36 M3box
In reply to OHSCrifle :
There was something like 8 feet or less of clearance at the keel. It's sunk I'm sure, but not by much.
Social media is hilarious. The amount of people who think this is some conspiracy and that we are being attacked is just........
In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
Yes, it's too soon. Yes, this is by far the best irreverent inappropriate meme/joke so far. I salute and congratulate you!
volvoclearinghouse said:
In reply to Mr_Asa :
Except....Maersk is not operating that ship, they have a lease agreement with the operators of the ship to transport the containers. I'll see if I can find the article I read the other day again, I'm remembering Maersk was leasing from the operator who runs the ship for the owner.
Not completely disagreeing with you, it's just not quite that cut and dried.
Link to NYT article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/us/dali-ship-baltimore-bridge.html
Spearfishin said:On a serious note, now that I've heard more about it (and specifically, for me working in commercial/industrial construction) it's freaking tragic that they knew, albeit for what sounds like a very short window, that the bridge was in danger AND that there were guys placing concrete out there. Assume there's a handful of people involved with a lot of feelings of helplessness and guilt about that little window of time, and what might have been, vs what happened.
It was really incredible that they were able to shut down and almost completely clear the bridge in such a short time. The coordination between the boat, coast guard, and bridge police worked amazingly well.
Duke said:In reply to OHSCrifle :
There was something like 8 feet or less of clearance at the keel. It's sunk I'm sure, but not by much.
..the more I think about it, I really wonder if the weight of the bridge was in fact no big deal to that ship. The buoyancy of that sucker must be pretty incredible.
You'll need to log in to post.
