Has it always been like this and we're just hearing of it more now because of Baltimore? I know that after that first big train derailment, it was happening all the time, but then I realized it was just reported on every time it happened, but derailments happen often. Is losing power on a ship that large a common occurrence?
This would seem like it would require some pretty specialized hacking and/or detailed knowledge. They would have to know what type of systems/computers these ships are using to control the power(common software or hardware/computer?). They would also need a spotter if it wasn't being tracked.
If it was an environmental reason, crashing ships into a bridge where tons of oil could be released into the water doesn’t make sense.
Both ships losing power just before going under the bridge? No tinfoil hat needed to wonder if it wasn’t deliberately done.In no way was it inferred to be an environmental reason. Just pointing out that someone around the industry has speculated that reformulated fuels to comply with current sulfur restrictions in fuel oil might be triggering failures in engines that were not designed to run optimally on ultra low sulfur fuels, resulting in lose of power and all that might entail.
Perhaps to understand that point, some knowledge of internal combustion engine operations may be necessary. Dunno
Furthermore, if it were a terrorist event, someone somewhere would be bragging about responsibility. They always do and no one has.
If nothing else there could be a 'conspiracy' to ignore the negative effects of these fuels.
Big ship engine problems aren’t something I know a thing about. All I know is that communication was lost on both ships right before a critical point - going under the bridge.
Cargo ships are supposed to stay in a channel away from bridge supports. Some bridges have flashing red lights on their supports, so ships could avoid smashing into the them. Ships do not have breaks, and they do not pivot easily. If for any reason a cargo ship is off course and heading for a bridge support, a flashing red light ain't gonna do much. Not having barriers to protect bridge supports in cargo ship lanes is sheer negligence.
Maybe I misunderstood. Ok get me the aluminum hat. Oddly enough I quit using cannabis a month ok. I’m completely straight. My minds not working well.
Ok now you’re just showing off.There's usually a couple of "dolphins" (the channel equivalent of pierside "fenders" in a way, you could say) on either side of the channel to funnel ships through and under bridges, however there's only so much that can be engineered to protect the pilings before you start encroaching into the shipping channel. Most people have never seen nor, do they understand the size of modern container vessels, A PANAMAX sized ship is going to destroy whatever gets in front of it, even a glancing blow is catastrophic.
Another thing to remember too is that many bridges were built long before cargo ships became as large as they have. In the case of the Dali in Baltimore, the Dali is TWICE as long as cargo ships were when that Baltimore bridge was built.
And here is a nautical chart showing placement of the "dolphins" around the bridge in Baltimore. May have been good protection way back when, but surely needed to to be upgraded as ships became larger ...
They know and are expensive to protect not that they are not worth it. Saw one bridge it costs them over 100 million to protect supports. It will cost 93 million dollars to protect the Delaware Memorial Bridge in Delaware. They're not exactly short projects either.
Thanks for dispelling some of the conspiracies and enlightening us to the deets.
