[Caymus]

Originally Posted by Normal

Cantilever? Or new pile design which should have been done before the accident? The ships of today need to be taken into account. We don’t want repetition of the accident.

The bridge was in service since 1977. Do you know if there were any previous hits or near misses?

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Caymus

The bridge was in service since 1977. Do you know if there were any previous hits or near misses?

Container ships of course have gone up roughly 600% in volume since the 70s. 2-3000 TCUs to some now at 18,000 TCUs. Perhaps the most negligent would be the state who never addressed the increased threat? Plenty of toll cash came in for tolls, but there was always tomorrow.

[Tvflguy]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Good leaders do not shoot their mouths off and make such statements before the experts complete their investigation.

The owners of the ship likely had no idea where the ship was at the time and certainly were not in control of the engines or the steering. Culpability should require some evidence that they were somehow involved beyond simple financing the ship. Depending on the terms of the lease agreement, they might not even be financially responsible. THAT is why a good leader would wait for the results of the investigation before laying blame.

“Laying blame”???? So our bridge caused the issue…. It was their ship and their accountability. At the very least, mention that the ships owners will be accountable. As well as Our Taxpayers….

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Tvflguy

“Laying blame”???? So our bridge caused the issue…. It was their ship and their accountability. At the very least, mention that the ships owners will be accountable. As well as Our Taxpayers….

Exactly the problem I mentioned. Why are the ship's owners responsible? What did the ship's owners do that contributed to the collision? The answer is we don't know at this point.

I see it as similar to renting a car from Hertz. If I am driving that car and have a collision, what responsibility do the owner's of Hertz have for the damages that were caused?

- If the law requires Hertz to carry insurance that covers their vehicle even when being operated by another then fine, they have some financial responsibility.

- If Hertz is responsible for maintenance of the vehicle but failed in that responsibility and if that failure contributed to the collision then they may have some financial responsibility.

- If the contract between Hertz and me clearly states that they are providing the vehicle but I am responsible for its proper operation then they would have no financial responsibility.

So what was the agreement between the ship's owner and Maersk? Who was responsible for maintenance of the ship? What was the cause of the loss of power and propulsion in the ship? The answer to those questions will determine who is responsible. We won't know the answers until the investigations are complete. Laying blame at this point is premature and jumping to conclusions. It is wrong to criticize leaders for being thorough and not jumping to conclusions.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Exactly the problem I mentioned. Why are the ship's owners responsible? What did the ship's owners do that contributed to the collision? The answer is we don't know at this point.

I see it as similar to renting a car from Hertz. If I am driving that car and have a collision, what responsibility do the owner's of Hertz have for the damages that were caused?

- If the law requires Hertz to carry insurance that covers their vehicle even when being operated by another then fine, they have some financial responsibility.

- If Hertz is responsible for maintenance of the vehicle but failed in that responsibility and if that failure contributed to the collision then they may have some financial responsibility.

- If the contract between Hertz and me clearly states that they are providing the vehicle but I am responsible for its proper operation then they would have no financial responsibility.

So what was the agreement between the ship's owner and Maersk? Who was responsible for maintenance of the ship? What was the cause of the loss of power and propulsion in the ship? The answer to those questions will determine who is responsible. We won't know the answers until the investigations are complete. Laying blame at this point is premature and jumping to conclusions. It is wrong to criticize leaders for being thorough and not jumping to conclusions.

Is it the ships owner, or the maker of the engines in the ship? Is it the city of Baltimore and their pilots who didn’t drop anchor? Is it the state of Maryland who owned the bridge and collected excessive tolls and didn’t use the toll revenue to improve the bridge overtime for today’s maritime vehicles? Could it be the original steel mill’s metal? Are engineers at fault? What about the last inspection company? What about back up systems and generators?

The list is endless. My impression is the state could have done a better job updating their own bridge.

[ithos]

You've got to be kidding me!

The giant vessel is made from thick, high-strength steel and is powered by one engine and one propeller. It's owned by the Singapore-based Grace Ocean and chartered by Denmark's Maersk.

A ship of that size? So much for single failure criteria.
Moment investigators board stranded Dali ship for the first time to get its black box and admit hazardous materials are seeping out after it hit Baltimore's Key Bridge: Comes as four of the six workers who died are named | Daily Mail Online

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Normal

Is it the ships owner, or the maker of the engines in the ship? Is it the city of Baltimore and their pilots who didn’t drop anchor? Is it the state of Maryland who owned the bridge and collected excessive tolls and didn’t use the toll revenue to improve the bridge overtime for today’s maritime vehicles? Could it be the original steel mill’s metal? Are engineers at fault? What about the last inspection company? What about back up systems and generators?

The list is endless. My impression is the state could have done a better job updating their own bridge.

The ships owner would be responsible for maintenance that might be a contributing factor. Time will tell.

[fdpaq0580]

[QUOTE=ithos;2316198

The only options I can think of is either build barriers to protect the piers or use tugs.



Another half hour paying for tugs would have been much less expensive than crashing the ship into a bridge pier.[/QUOTE]

Build higher and stronger.

If only they had checked the magic 8 ball.
Seriously, tugs are a good help, normally. But even tugs can have breakdowns. Accidents happen. Nothing is 100%.

[fdpaq0580]

The insurance companies will figure it out. This not uncharted waters for them. Even if all maintenance was upto date, no problems found during inspections, all systems operating when tugs departed, things can just break.
Dropping anchor might not have been a viable option since cables, pipes, and more pass under water through many harbors. Destruction may have been even worse, more destructive, disruptive and deadly

[Dusty_Star]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

You might be thinking of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge near Annapolis. That bridge was opened in 1952 and is about four miles long. I believe there is more steel work than the Key bridge but since the Bay bridge is so much longer it would feel like there was less.

The second span of the Bay bridge, the westbound span, opened in 1973. This span has less steel work than the original, eastbound span.

Thanks!!! I am sure you are right.

[CarlR33]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

The insurance companies will figure it out. This not uncharted waters for them. Even if all maintenance was upto date, no problems found during inspections, all systems operating when tugs departed, things can just break.
Dropping anchor might not have been a viable option since cables, pipes, and more pass under water through many harbors. Destruction may have been even worse, more destructive, disruptive and deadly

I thought I heard they did drop anchor to slow it down….maybe not?

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by CarlR33

I thought I heard they did drop anchor to slow it down….maybe not?

I honestly haven't kept up with the investigations. Maybe they did. But, all harbors aren't just mud on the bottom. Depending what is on the bottom they could have torn up anything. Electronics, communications, gas, oil, ?, ?. We won't really know anything until the investigations are done and reviewed. At this point it is all conjecture. But there will be a lot of arguments, finger pointing and butt protecting.
The one bright star that I can see is, I was not the Captain. I would have chosen to go down without my ship.

[keepsake]

Just assign and attach a tug boat to each vessel til they clear the obstacles.

[ithos]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Build higher and stronger.

If only they had checked the magic 8 ball.
Seriously, tugs are a good help, normally. But even tugs can have breakdowns. Accidents happen. Nothing is 100%.

Fortunately there are governing agencies who don't take such a lackadaisical view as yours. When there are single engine super freighters passing under inherently fragile truss bridges, then over time the odds are not on their side. Far superior bridges have pier protection because of the foresight of their governing authorities.

If any agency was using an 8 ball, it was the one who had oversight of the FSK bridge.

Here's what surprised a Drexel University professor about the Baltimore bridge collapse
https://6abc.com/baltimore-bridge-co...sity/14574047/

[kkingston57]

Originally Posted by Justputt

One engineer commented there should be structures in place around these main supports to be a first point of contact for out-of-control ships that don't compromise the bridge. When the newer Chesapeake Bay bridge was built, the islands of concrete they build for the major span supports were very impressive and much larger than the span steel that went into them. It was amazing to watch every time we crossed the old bridge.

Bridge was built between 72 and 77. Bet new design will have structures you discussed,