Bridge Collapse (Page 7): Really?....🤔...

srt101fan

robertjerl wrote:

And all it did was turn the ship so instead of missing the bridge column, it hit it. Things probably would have gone better without that anchor, as the ship would either have glided under the bridge or run aground near the column instead of taking it out.

Sometimes the best action is to take no action.

Really?....🤔

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

srt101fan wrote:

Really?....🤔

Yes, even if they had dropped all anchors, fore and aft the ship would have barely slowed and depending on the grip the anchors got on the bottom would have still turned from the straight ahead course - but turned to where???

The ship was pointed to go through the channel under the bridge when the power failed and that anchor got dropped, without the anchor only the currents would have turned it, and it might have made it under the bridge or run aground without taking out the bridge.

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

robertjerl wrote:

And all it did was turn the ship so instead of missing the bridge column, it hit it. Things probably would have gone better without that anchor, as the ship would either have glided under the bridge or run aground near the column instead of taking it out.

Sometimes the best action is to take no action.

Not the sort of movements that could be exactly predicted ahead of time, without precisely knowing water current directions, speed, eddies, and seconds and minutes were flying by in mach speeds, while the ship's bridge and engine room were probably beehives of activity trying to getting under power again and avoid the bridge all together.

The public, government outcry if no feeble effort was made to use anchors as a braking maneuver, may likely have demands for public hanging of the crew and pilots being made.....like a big commercial vehicle crash on land if there is no evidence the operator(s) attempted evasive/braking actions.

Goldyrock

There were 6 people that were lost, 2 others were rescued. Fortunately either the pilot or the captained radioed the bridge and all vehicle traffic was stopped. My condolences to you for traveling on the Belt Pkwy. Hope you have lots of toll money. LOL!

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

robertjerl wrote:

Yes, even if they had dropped all anchors, fore and aft the ship would have barely slowed and depending on the grip the anchors got on the bottom would have still turned from the straight ahead course - but turned to where???

The ship was pointed to go through the channel under the bridge when the power failed and that anchor got dropped, without the anchor only the currents would have turned it, and it might have made it under the bridge or run aground without taking out the bridge.

Easy to armchair that from videos in the dark from what....½, ¾, 1 mile away?

If tide was already beginning to change, causing irregular flows, or many other considerstions, there is really no way to be certain that ship would have harmlessly drifted through in the main channel.

Until, unless, if, there is any way to unquestionably prove an anchor was undeniably the only influence on the course change, it's pretty far out there to put blame on the pilots and ship crew for following standard slowing attempt methods.

srt101fan

robertjerl wrote:

Yes, even if they had dropped all anchors, fore and aft the ship would have barely slowed and depending on the grip the anchors got on the bottom would have still turned from the straight ahead course - but turned to where???

The ship was pointed to go through the channel under the bridge when the power failed and that anchor got dropped, without the anchor only the currents would have turned it, and it might have made it under the bridge or run aground without taking out the bridge.

I think the NTSB, Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers are all making a big mistake; they should come to the UHH forum where they will find all the answers.....

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

robertjerl wrote:

Yes, even if they had dropped all anchors, fore and aft the ship would have barely slowed and depending on the grip the anchors got on the bottom would have still turned from the straight ahead course - but turned to where???

The ship was pointed to go through the channel under the bridge when the power failed and that anchor got dropped, without the anchor only the currents would have turned it, and it might have made it under the bridge or run aground without taking out the bridge.

What class of any of those large ships has anchors aft?

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

srt101fan wrote:

I think the NTSB, Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers are all making a big mistake; they should come to the UHH forum where they will find all the answers.....

They'd probably just end up being castigated by the UHH section police, for...........uhmmmm..........the wrong color lapel pin??

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

dustie wrote:

Not the sort of movements that could be exactly pr... (show quote)

Exactly. We don’t know what would have happened if no action was taken, but if no action was taken and it hit the bridge there would be hell to pay.

catskinner Loc: Middle Kansas

It would be a BIG mistake to have the investigating committee come to this board to look for answers. They did drop a anchor, if it hit the bottom is another question. I have seen so much miss information on this board, that it is terrible
I see the containers are stacked 10 high, the same as other ships and they are below the top of the ships exhaust stacks. I don't know where you people get your info but it is terrible. catskinner

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I am not a marine engineer (my experience is limited to a plastic canoe) and all I know about this event comes from the internet. I have to believe that the pilot who was in charge was experienced (you don't get to be a pilot without experience) and did whatever (s)he could to prevent the ship from going off course. After all, (s)he is answerable to the authorities and his/her future is at stake. Answers will come from analysis of the black box and interviews with the crew as well as the videos of the ship and everything we have seen on the internet. Until then, I have to consider that it's an accident. There may be events or actions that led to the accident but this is not the forum to lay blame. That will be up to the NTSB (or maritime equivalent).

FrumCA

DirtFarmer wrote:

I am not a marine engineer (my experience is limit... (show quote)

Logic and commonsense prevails.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

dustie wrote:

Easy to armchair that from videos in the dark from... (show quote)

might was the word I used.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

srt101fan wrote:

I think the NTSB, Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers are all making a big mistake; they should come to the UHH forum where they will find all the answers.....

Don't you mean speculation? That is what I was doing.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

dustie wrote:

What class of any of those large ships has anchors aft?

Since anchors are for position holding when not moving or at a pier, many vessels have them at both ends, on both sides etc. It depends on the vessel and the places where it will be anchoring. Diving boats/ships like many other work boats have anchors that can be spread out to hold it in one spot with one orientation.