The ship was still moving forward. At that point it was a glider and the rudder will still work.

The wind pushes but a coracle does not tack does it?
Now you see my point of view. Properly designed boats will not be just pushed around uncontrollably by wind because it was designed to counter those forces.

Your misreading my posts as well.
I'm not stating this and that is what happened.
Just discussing the event and clarifying why i have such points of view.

Put a sail on a coracle, and have it pushed by the wind. Tack if you can.

I was discussing the incident, based on the breaking news.
My local time is different that I was awake and saw it just minutes after it happened.

With reasons, I stand by my words, 8 knots is fast for the situation they are in. It may be the allowed speed for the area, but in the dark and passing through a small gap, that is unwise.
Just like a highway with a 100mph sign, would you go that fast if the conditions are not good, like if the road is iced?

With much traffic & tight spaces, 6 knots or lower is the recommended speed. That hole they are threading through is barely longer than the length of the ship.

8 knots may be their norm and are always getting away with, but it was unsafe for that spot. And that night, the dice roll caught up.


You need to read back and see the context where that word was used. It was not arguing that speed as a limit. Your being blinded by the need to be right in the discussion.

Ask yourself.
8 knots is needed to be able to properly steer the ship? Why design a ship that can only steer properly when it is going at 8 knots? What happens when it had to start from a stand still? Go around in circles first? Meaning your presumption is incorrect. Many ships are actually more maneuverable at lower speeds because they can use other equipments like bow thrusters to augment the main propulsion & steering.


But they still lost control. The redundancy was inoperable.
How am I wrong on this thought that they were operating an unsafe vessel?


Again read the context. That was a sarcastic comment, meaning no one would do such a thing.
The point of contention is a question; Did they know that when needed, none of those back-ups work?
If they did, why did they not take more precautions?


I've addressed that and even thanked you, If such was the correct arrangement because I have a different knowledge about it.


Read it without bias and understand the context.
In that sentence, it was not about a speed to a limit. It was about making a decision or choice.
The pilot is going home after the shift. If that is not clear to you, upon reaching the open water, he would either move another ship or finish for the day and go home. Human factor can be a big thing in unwanted events. But to clarify, I'm not saying that is what happened. Read Again the previous post. Those are questions to a broader line of though.

Now, do you even understand what safety buffers mean? Do you still drive even without brakes because you can see the road?


Precisely my point in my very first post, ships do not suddenly steer. Thats is why I even said, I have doubts it was an accident.
I also mentioned that current will have more effect on the ship than the wind, because the boat is floating on it.

“Ships do not necessarily gets blown about by the wind. Sailboats won't tack if that is true”


Maybe because you already have a preconceived idea and are not really trying to understand my post but is trying do just prove me wrong. Otherwise, I'll take it that you do not really know what you are talking about and have no idea how the wind affects boats and the relation of shape, sail area and the rest of the ship.


And the slab sided ship is not a sail. It would react more like a building than a sail, so everything you said does not apply here.


I would not even go there.
1. It was not a flat object. It is cubic.
2. Air density changes, hence your calculation is missing a correct data
3. You are not considering the center of pressure of the object.
4. You are not considering the Direction of wind
5. You are not considering the Direction of the ship relative to the wind
6. yadda yadda yadda etc.

I said (in my experience) wind is usually negligible at night and if that was the case, it would not a factor. Yes this is more true if the area is inland and you have even confirmed that it does happen especially inland, which I have shown in the map the place was inland.
I am not contesting the effect of wind but stating a common weather condition that can present in the incident. I did say the water current will play a bigger role compared to the wind. If you misread again, it does not mean the wind is not a factor. Only that it is to a lesser degree compared to the others. It may be a big factor? Possible. Only the investigation will really tell.We are just discussing possibilities. No need push our side of the story.

Thanks for the conversation and I'm sorry we just have to agree to disagree.

I can assure you, I know my way around. If your definition of an experienced mariner is Only about being a Master of big ships, then we can only agree to disagree.

Regarding the wind, I'm an Aircraft Mechanic graduate and an Aeronautical Engineering undergraduate. Not only boats, I've repaired, built and designed an aircraft as well.
Rocketry was a hobby, even mixing my own solid fuel, since we do not have estes in our deprived country

You can say I know the wind a little , thus never disregard it, even if I can not accurately predict weather or not it will be there. It won't be called weather if we can.

If you readback, I said " I do not think the wind was not that strong on that night to veer the ship suddenly to the pillar if that is what happened."
The point there is the sudden course change just seconds to impact.

Ships do not necessarily gets blown about by the wind. Sailboats won't tack if that is true. Since the ship is floating on water, its flow has a stronger and more immediate effect on the tracking of a vessel than the breeze. Granted some large ships do not have a Keel to resist side forces, they are still designed more to move forward, than sideways. What we have to consider is the ratio of sail area to mass & the wetted plane. Aside from drag, the wind will have to move away a volume of water, the same weight of the ship against the wetted plane perpendicular to its force. The heavier the ship and deeper the draft, the more it will resist and the less likely will it be pushed.

In retrospect, did say I am missing many factors. After all, I was discussing the event when the news was all new and there were very few details available.

Your still thinking it is not possible when I already gave information that I had lived in an island nation. 7,641 islands to be exact. I (me and 2 other friends) built our first boat when I was in High school. We capsized, sank and rebuilt it too. Good & fun memories

They are inland by the way, 250km from open waters and 140+km distance overland.

I grew up in the Philippines. We are islanders.

I'm missing a lot of things.
Not discussing the wind as it happened at dead of the night which normally have still air, but not saying it was not a factor. It could easilly have been.
Just discussing and presenting my views, some of which are contrary to others views.

I'm confused with your answer. 8 knots is not pushing it but it needs to be faster to turn the boat? It does not make sense to me.

As previously mentioned, 8 knots may be the limit operating speed for that area. If that is the case, then operating on the limit at reduced visibility and decreasing space is indeed "pushing it".

But that was not what I meant with the later post of pushing 8 knots. Its about deciding to go to that speed, regardless if he had the knowlege that he has no redundancy/safety margin.

As for the boat needing momentum to turn, it does not work that way. Momentum keeps the boat moving in a steady and same direction.

The boat needs another force against its momentum to change direction.
-Friction will slow it down eventually
-River flow may move it to another direction eventually,
-wind may do the same
-the rudder with flow around it, will creates a reaction to turn it.

Momentum is whats resisting all the above to happen.
But momentum in that instance, if they still have rudder control, will "help" to turn, because it keeps the boat moving forward, hence water flows on the rudder, meaning the rudder would still have effect -eventually.

I was thinking your reply of the boat leaving port, not arriving is about the gethometitis.

But reports says they lost control, meaning the redundancy was not there, or the redundancy were all broken too, meaning they were operating a very unsafe vessel.
As for the pilot-captain relation, My understanding is that the pilot is in command while the ship is under his jurisdiction, not only for the navigation. If I'm mistaken then thanks for the correction.

Nope. Rudders do not produce thrust. No different from a gliding airplane. The boats rudder works by causing a reaction to the fluid moving on it. It does not matter if the rudder is going through the fluid or it is steady but fluid is flowing around it, you get a reaction. That was its designed purpose.

Since the boat is moving forward, the rudder will still have effect. Only diminished in effectivity, because water flows faster on it when the propellers are working.
Only when the boat is drifting, when the water and the boat is moving as one, will the rudder be useless. The boats mass, for a short while, made that drifting non-factor. It was still cruising forward.
I'm hoping that investigators do find the problem and have it mitigated.

Fuzzy thinking works great. keeps the mind open and exploring.
Too great they are making machines learn fuzzy logic too.

If this is about the gethometitis, then not relevant. The pilot does not cross the sea with the boat. It might be leaving port but it means the pilot if he finish early will go to another ship or maybe home.