Well, I finally got around to reading the accident report from the NTSB. My opinion here is based on the report. I have not talked to the pilots involved but have been in many similar situations and close calls.
Once again the NTSB missed an opportunity to go a little deeper into an investigation. Over the years they have conducted many investigations where a ship loses control in situations that are routine for other ships in the same circumstances. The case of the Eagle Otome in Sabine Pass was one. The Orange Sun in NY harbor was another. Probably the Evergiven in Suez as well. There have been many more.
Thousands of ships transit the Houston Ship every year and sea speed across Galveston Bay is routine. Speed could only be a contributing factor - maybe 10% of the blame. This collision was most likely because the ship was built with the bare minimum size rudder designed to keep course in open deep water. It was obviously inadequate for maneuvering of any kind and particularly not for shallow water narrow channels. The full NTSB report actually says the rudder was designed for fuel efficiency which probably means she was also designed to be directionally unstable so as to minimize the amount of rudder necessary to course correct. I have talked to naval architects and read articles confirming the priority of fuel efficiency over maneuvering ability. One architect even admonished a pilot asking about this practice by saying ships spend 99% of their time at sea so they are designed for that environment. Golf clubs spend 99% of their time in a bag in the trunk of a car, but they still have heads on them to hit the ball. The pilots in this incident were actually recorded on the Voice Data Recorder discussing how bad the ship handled in exactly this manner, but the NTSB did not follow up.
The report said the Genesis River met the IMO maneuvering standards but they should have looked deeper into its zig-zag test. I would guess it was not performed on the actual ship but on a simulation. For those who don’t know, a zig-zag test is supposed to be part of the sea trials of the ship. The ship is supposed to be loaded and at full speed. The rudder is put over 20 degrees (for a 20-20 test). When the course has changed by 20 degrees the rudder is shifted to 20 degrees in the opposite direction. When she is 20 degrees on the other side of the initial course the rudder is shifted again. This is repeated several times. The test is how far she continues to turn before checking up each time. A ship that is dynamically unstable will have difficulty in passing this test. Zig-zag results are not posted on the bridge even though they could be useful to the pilot. In Houston we tried to study poorly handling ships by comparing rudder size and looking into the zig-zag tests. The rudder size info was mostly not available although the few we got showed a significant variation and, importantly, a correlation between size of rudder and maneuverability. Zig-zag info was likewise mostly not available. Sometimes the test appeared to have been performed using simulation. I remember one where the overshoot was exactly 19.4 degrees. Every time. There was also one, the old Jo Lonn, where the captain was curious enough to dig up the test. It was a live test with the real ship. Buried in the appendix was this note… “lost control of ship during test”.
Last time I looked there was no guidance from the vetting agencies on rudder size except for something vague from Det Norske.
Why not look into why ship after ship steers so badly?
Easier to blame the pilot.
The report outlines a scenario in which the intersection of the Bayport channel with the main ship channel played a major role because of the variations in channel width.
I have transited that area many times as a pilot before retirement. There is an effect, but not really significant.
I’d propose an alternate explanation. The previous meetings were in the straight parts of the channel. These meetings only require the ship to turn 4-6 degrees. The collision occurred after the ship made a turn in the channel of 15 degrees and while that turn was accelerated by the passing stern of the inbound ship. That is enough of a turn to make a loaded ship that is directionally unstable very difficult to check up and steady on the new course. You can start the turn with 10 degrees of rudder, but once she begins swinging full rudder in the opposite direction is barely adequate.
This might not be what happened - I didn’t talk to the pilots - but it is more likely than the haunted Bayport channel scenario.