OT Key Bridge collapse - seems surreal

[Spaghetti Legs]

In my ship driving days (Navy) we had situations for “restricted maneuvering” meaning the propulsion dept took excess measures to keep the lights on and the screw and rudder working, even if it meant causing damage to the propulsion; a very big deal for a steam turbine but this ship is likely diesel so not sure how it would differ. Going in and out of port was one of those situations. We also had an anchor ready to let go but even if this ship had an anchor ready, the water may be too deep and I can only imagine how long it would take to set or how many you’d need for a vessel like that.

It’s pretty routine for a pilot to stay aboard until well outside a harbor, but immaterial in this situation.

[fourflys]

it's interesting to see when and where tugs are used/required.. having sailed around the Caribbean and West coast of Central America with the USCG, I've pulled into a lot of US and foreign ports.. we often had, at least, a pilot (even in and out of our home port) and often had a tug for a 270' vessel.. yes, a cargo ship would require a few tugs for sure, but would have probably avoided what happened.. esp if they had enough time with the powerplant failure (and it sound like they would have)..

at least it would make sense to require a tug if you are transiting under/around any infrastructure in my mind anyway.. of course, that depends on the size of the cargo ship and width between the supports I guess..

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by fourflys

at least it would make sense to require a tug if you are transiting under/around any infrastructure in my mind anyway.. of course, that depends on the size of the cargo ship and width between the supports I guess..

Something like that sounds good to me, but (and I ask this as a genuine, not rhetorical question), if this isn't the status quo, do we even have the tugboat capacity to have tugboats escort every cargo ship under a bridge?

[fourflys]

Originally Posted by Spaghetti Legs

We also had an anchor ready to let go but even if this ship had an anchor ready, the water may be too deep and I can only imagine how long it would take to set or how many you’d need for a vessel like that.

I was wondering about that as well.. do these ships have a special sea detail while transiting? we always had a full crew forward and aft, in the emergency steering room, etc.. I do wonder how long they would have had to drop the anchor, it catch, etc.. I do imagine they have a LOT of anchor chain though..

[fourflys]

Originally Posted by prototoast

Something like that sounds good to me, but (and I ask this as a genuine, not rhetorical question), if this isn't the status quo, do we even have the tugboat capacity to have tugboats escort every cargo ship under a bridge?

fair point..

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by prototoast

Something like that sounds good to me, but (and I ask this as a genuine, not rhetorical question), if this isn't the status quo, do we even have the tugboat capacity to have tugboats escort every cargo ship under a bridge?

Shipping in/out of Baltimore is busy, but you're only getting one ship at a time under the bridge, so you wouldn't need a massive fleet. Obviously other ports do use tugs. I assume it's just a cost-cutting measure to not use them.

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by saab2000

As mentioned above, it’ll be hard to hold anyone truly accountable because of the tentacles of ownership and operations being tangled and deliberately opaque.

This is not true. The ownership only appears opaque but you can always get to the UBO. Someone is always holding the bag, it just takes time and legal fees as you often need to get a disclosure order from courts to get the documents. Those documents often lead to another company where you repeat the process. But eventually, you get to the end. It can take a few years and a few million dollars in legal fees. ACRA is the insurance agent here, and they have an obligation to know the UBO of Grace Ocean. Grace Ocean will have an obligation to know the UBO of Synergy Marine Group and finally for Synergy Marine Group, Maersk is a listed company and through material adverse disclosure rules, they will have to discuss the accident and which entity of theirs is involved to equity and bond holders.. There should also be about 4+ types of insurance for this. Insurance for the hulls and machinery, insurance for the crew, insurance for cargo, and charter liability insurance. Maersk may also have a separate catastrophe policy. Lots of policies here. This is big money and people do not risk big money. Since Maersk is involved, I would be shocked if everything is not spelled out in the charter contract.


The opaqueness just prevents noisy reporters from reporting, but for those with real skin in the game, they know.

update- Grace Ocean if a subsidiary of the Japanese trading company Mitsu & Co. Insurance is Britannia Protection and Indemnity Club. They in turn have a reinsurance policy with AXA XL which thru a few layers can max out at $2.1 billion. The key now will be determining liability to see who bears the insurance cost. Some of this could be Port of Baltimore with their Harbor Pilots onboard. But both Mitsui and Maersk have deep pockets on top of this.

This was a New Panamax container ship. There is no rinky dink here.

[benb]

Originally Posted by Spaghetti Legs

In my ship driving days (Navy) we had situations for “restricted maneuvering” meaning the propulsion dept took excess measures to keep the lights on and the screw and rudder working, even if it meant causing damage to the propulsion; a very big deal for a steam turbine but this ship is likely diesel so not sure how it would differ. Going in and out of port was one of those situations. We also had an anchor ready to let go but even if this ship had an anchor ready, the water may be too deep and I can only imagine how long it would take to set or how many you’d need for a vessel like that.

It’s pretty routine for a pilot to stay aboard until well outside a harbor, but immaterial in this situation.

I've only been in big Navy ships, and only the ones that are museums.

It's actually bonkers how big the powerplants are and how complex. The most recent one I visited was the USS Yorktown and it was rather crazy to see how the powerplant is the size of a 2-story house with stations up and down both sides. Lots of placards with highly technical information and the crew obviously had to communicate and coordinate extremely well.

I'd imagine a 2015 Merchant Marine ship is highly computerized the crew probably has nowhere near the same level of hands on understanding and professionalism if things are not working perfectly.

It does boggle my mind the Wikipedia page says the Dali's powerplant is a 2-Stroke! I had heard these ships have almost no environmental controls but I would never have imagined it was a 50,000hp two stroke. Nice and simple, but somehow I've got to imagine very dirty. (edit: I see claims that one of these ships pollutes as much as 50 million 4-stroke modern petrol cars)

[saab2000]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

This is not true. The ownership only appears opaque but you can always get to the UBO. Someone is always holding the bag, it just takes time and legal fees as you often need to get a disclosure order from courts to get the documents. Those documents often lead to another company where you repeat the process. But eventually, you get to the end. It can take a few years and a few million dollars in legal fees. ACRA is the insurance agent here, and they have an obligation to know the UBO of Grace Ocean. Grace Ocean will have an obligation to know the UBO of Synergy Marine Group and finally for Synergy Marine Group, Maersk is a listed company and through material adverse disclosure rules, they will have to discuss the accident and which entity of theirs is involved to equity and bond holders.. There should also be about 4+ types of insurance for this. Insurance for the hulls and machinery, insurance for the crew, insurance for cargo, and charter liability insurance. Maersk may also have a separate catastrophe policy. Lots of policies here. This is big money and people do not risk big money. Since Maersk is involved, I would be shocked if everything is not spelled out in the charter contract.


The opaqueness just prevents noisy reporters from reporting, but for those with real skin in the game, they know.

update- Grace Ocean if a subsidiary of the Japanese trading company Mitsu & Co. Insurance is Britannia Protection and Indemnity Club. They in turn have a reinsurance policy with AXA XL which thru a few layers can max out at $2.1 billion. The key now will be determining liability to see who bears the insurance cost. Some of this could be Port of Baltimore with their Harbor Pilots onboard. But both Mitsui and Maersk have deep pockets on top of this.

This was a New Panamax container ship. There is no rinky dink here.

I hope you’re right. This won’t maintain headlines for too long.

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by benb

I've only been in big Navy ships, and only the ones that are museums.


I'd imagine a 2015 Merchant Marine ship is highly computerized the crew probably has nowhere near the same level of hands on understanding and professionalism if things are not working perfectly.

So you've toured a few retired navy ships, and you think you have a basis for that accusation?

Of course I know nothing about this crew or this company, but I've been impressed with all of the merchant mariners of the world I have had the pleasure to meet and work with. As I mentioned, I've sailed as an engineer on a Mearsk container ship with a slow speed diesel power/propulsion plant, and the idea that since it's not a steam plant (I've sailed on those too), the engineers must be less professional or knowledgeable of the plant they literally live on is insulting.

[benb]

And yet here we are and it was a Maersk chartered vessel that caused this catastrophe.

[bikinchris]

When people complain about government oversight of business and cry that they want less "interference" I always think that business will cut corners to the detriment of safety. This is a perfect example.

[benb]

My comment about the powerplants also had to do with this ship had 22 crew. They can't be in 5 places at once.

Those navy ships likely had more than 20 people on the watch in the engine room alone. Modern navy ships have less crew but still huge money is spent on having lots of crew and redundancy and ability to solve problems fast.

They could be the best sailors in the world and it really doesn't matter on a ship of that size when a problem happens and you are a ten minute walk away from where the problem occurred.

They aren't doing the same job. But if a Navy ship had hit this bridge everyone would be calling for heads to roll.

[redir]

I was white knuckling it watching those big rigs go over the bridge just before that thing hit it. Thankfully it was at the least busiest time on that bridge. It always gives me pause when thinking about how astronomical the odds are when things like this occur. You could have had to run back into the house because you forgot your wallet and would have totally missed that collision, or been right on time for it.

[m_sasso]

What about the unlucky people that kept driving part way over that bridge and then fell?

Seems to me this has happened frequently enough that there should be some sort of prevention system in place when these ships lose power near a well traveled bridge. A warning system and the limited access highway should be immediately closed to limit vehicle and pedestrian traffic on the bridge. Especially in places that see frequent shipping traffic traveling underneath the bridges.