The FBI is aboard the DALI this morning

You are correct that there is so far no proof of any preexisting electrical deficiencies in the DALI before the last line was dropped however we know representatives of the circuit breaker manufacturer have come from South Korea to assist in the investigation of the accident so for you to state this is dubious speculation on our part is unfair of you. Obviously, there was some failure in the power generation or distribution which caused the blackout because that doesn’t happen on a vessel that is electrically sound and operated properly. Something failed that morning.

Of course, we are stuck now in an information vacuum where no new details are being released so in the meantime we can only speculate until such time that more information is released. We can only use what we have but there are plenty of indications to tell us that something went terribly wrong.

Should there have been literally no tripping breakers while dockside and a fully sound power distribution system and then the blackout happened without any warning then somebody did something terribly wrong in the E/R. We have speculated that a bow thruster breaker being opened cause the blackout but if that BT was connected to the same HV buss bar also feeding all the pumps keeping steering and main engine operating was that itself not a safe operating failure? What else could have caused an HV breaker to trip off and if the ship had a 2nd SSDG connected there should not have been a blackout so we have also speculated that they only had one SSDG connected on departure which was extremely dangerous to do but for the love of God, why only one? Were commercial pressures applied here?

So it comes down to one of only two scenarios…the first is that the DALI had a something wrong with it and that wasn’t reported to the USCG before sailing or the second is that there was a great human failure in configuring the power distribution on the ship or not having sufficient spinning reserves connected. Either way, this was not some random act of God that smited the ship that morning. I hold to that it was the former and not the later but we must wait to find out which it was.

Jeez! What an experience you have been through. Don’t think it can get any worse. In my sailing career and later shoreside with large companies, no BBC, no TC, no CP, no H&M or P&I club direct contact, etc that the Master needed to deal with. Engineering is even less exposed to the contractual stuff … yes, on the shore side dealing with H&M claims are few and far between.

Yes I agree; “something failed that morning” . But we don’t know what, when and how, do we?

The manufactures of machinery and equipment that MAY be a reason for an accident are usually called in to either find or eliminate that their equipment was malfunctioning

COULD it be a third reason, “shit happens” and here it happened at the wrong time and place?

May we presume that you have some contacts with God since you are so sure that somebody has to be blamed (preferably Maersk)?
Waiting until more facts are known is a good advice from you. Hope you follow your own advice.

Ombugge and you are correct. No concrete evidence. What we have so far:
‘Reports of blackout’ in port by the reefer lady.
NTSB advising about the breaker issue
Video of ship blacking out … 3 times and the black smoke.

That’s really all we have and kind of guessing. If our guess about the BT starter panel (breaker or contactor) causing the first blackout underway is correct, it may very well be possible that after they were alongside and FWE and when shutting down machinery the same BT might have been given them grief. Are blackouts in port (and quick recovery) reportable? Not sure these days, but do not think so. Maybe it was not even reported to the Master. Who knows. But the SG failure that is certain is a mystery – why did this fail?

No I won’t, we can speculate all we want to here because this not a formal investigation or a court of law. This is simply a public forum where we can talk about any and all potential causes for this to have happened.

9 Out of 10 Ships are some kind of FOC. My statistics come from a Cat Food commercial and personal observation of the ports I frequent.
Ship Owners and Charterers are often multinational corporations. Some of the big players in many types of trade are still old well European known names. Some are Newer well known Asian names. Some are American.
Several decades since I worked deep sea. It was a time of great change. Ships I worked on sold off crews layed off in a few short years. Many of the ships were bought cheep by FOC company and often chartered back. To run with much lower cost crews.
I had worked for a major oil company. A few short years went from being one of the largest shipping companies in the world to quite small. Not just hundreds laid of thousands. Most people my age left the industry completely.
I struggled with life ashore and got lucky and found work at sea as a 3rd mate.
A year or so later.
The company announced they were shutting down. All the ships were changing ownership and flag and all of us laid off. With a job offer Sailing the same ship on a Hong Kong Flag. 3rd world crew.
Office was a file cabinet in Hong Kong. theoretically we worked for a Hong Kong company.
Reality we were working for the same company, the same owner, chartered by the same Very Well known big name in Shipping (not Mearsk)
Sometimes Probabaly Chartered out to Mearsk.
FOC, No Union, No Rights, No Protection, No Job Security at time when jobs were really hard to find.
I took the job. I thought I was lucky o have work.
Traditional company, I was often the Old Mans go for. Which gave me the opportunity to learn a lot.

Along with ensuring shit doesn’t happen. The Capt.'s job is managing the business of the ship. The Main part of his job. Making sure the ship was never exposed to liability. He would carefully read charters. And Explained most are just what we would call standard cut and paste.
The same words and clause used for in some cases centuries.
Our company did not own the ships. We managed ships owned by other company.
We stayed in business not because we did not follow regulations.
We stayed in business as an FOC operator because we did follow the regulations and by doing so kept the company safe from liability.
I was party to a few interesting conversations over the time i worked there about what we would or wouldn’t do. Simply explaining why and what the law was along with the exposure the Capt. and Chief were listened to and valued not fired.

We stayed in business at much higher pay rate than some other nationalities. because we did not cost the company money by being off hire.
The Engineers really kept us in business, Shit didn’t happen. Shit got fixed.
Shit happened occasionally,
Eventually I quit and came inshore.

My Experience was a very long time ago. It included working for big multi national companies who still exist as big players in international shipping.
Yes they sure as hell were cheep and wanted to be kept up to date on stuff.
They made it real clear money was an object.
They wanted us to follow the law.

A Capt. I recall getting demoted. Got demoted because the company found out he did not follow the law. He got demoted because he exposed the company to huge liability. He didn’t even get caught it didn’t happen the company was worried about what might have happened.
I do recall a very stressful time for a Chief after a significant ER problem. The pressure to get if fixed and have the ship up and running intense.

Things have changed, Amoco, P&O, Exon, BP ect have all learned the hard way. Accidents are really bad for business.
The ISM exist now. It didn’t back in the day.
Back then charterers didn’t audit.
They do now.
I don’t know Maersk. Or the company running this ship. Or the crew. Yea they are probably worried the liability and possibly about their jobs. Maybe even their freedom.

Maersk will probably have done or had somebody do a pre charter audit of the ship and periodic audits. Maersk will have it clearly written they are required to be informed of any problems.
Who pays for a delay is a big deal. It always has been.

Did they do everything they were supposed to? Maybe, Maybe not. No evidence yet anyone did anything wrong.
The NTSB will look at all this.
Its a big event the FBI ect. nothing unusual.

In todays world there is an international shortage of seafarers. Surly there is less fear of being fired than there was back then. Different people react different.

Compliance costs … non-compliance costs even more … but getting CAUGHT in non-compliance costs the most.

Interestingly your experience working a FOC mirrored mine. The management company had been in business for over a hundred years. Instructions were clear cut and my responsibilities were laid out clearly. I had 24 hour access to what ever department I needed including the chartering department. I also had a copy of the charter party. The Chief Engineer and I were the only Europeans onboard and we worked 1:1 for leave. When a ship visited the port where the management was located the managing director took the master for lunch. You were expected to answer frankly any of the questions he asked.

Ok. Have sth for You Gentleman . It is from 2019 but in 24 hrs i will get an updated version.
image

Ch,50

SHP19_E-Edition-286-295.pdf (239.7 KB)

Enjoy while I take a few days off :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
and cheers.

That the FBI is involved is not a positive development as far as the potential level of legal risk the crew or company is facing.

That said the range of possible scenarios is much broader than just the worse case.

Foreign flag ship lying on their arrival, this is my shocked face.

Ships don’t lye. People may tell lyes, no matter race, religion or nationality.
Does anybody onboard US flag ships lye/hide facts when arriving/undergoing PSC in foreign ports?

We all lie on pre arrival, unless it’s something that can’t be hidden. Many foreign ports use vessel problems as there ATM. Also many ship companies do not want to have to go to an U.S. shipyard for emergency repairs.

This case is heading outside the Admiralty Court and International Maritime Laws very quickly:

This happen long before the inquiry by NTSB, USCG and Flag State Authorities are completed and even a preliminary report issued.

What are the changes that the Master, Cheng, Owners and Managers of M/V Dali gets a fair trial in a District Court in Maryland? (Especially if it is a Criminal case, with a jury)

WTF are you talking about?
The Court is going to apply U.S law regardless. Either in the limitation action filed by the vessel owner, or in the action in U.S. federal court if it is found this action does not need to be consolidated in the limitation action. The City of Baltimore action is an effort to remove the case from maritime law, i.e. no limitation of liability and availability of a jury.

The above notwithstanding, for at least 50 years there have been no dedicated admiralty courts in the US. And even if there were, they would apply U.S. maritime law, not international (although they are similar).

No one has file criminal proceedings. And, the limitation action and the complaint by the City of Baltimore were filed in the same Court.

When I am ignorant of a subject, I tend to keep quiet. But YMMV.

They will get as fair a trial as anyone else as long as they aren’t dumb enough to go with the “You built a crappy bridge, you should have known we would hit it” defense, at which point the jury will probably go beat their asses right in the courtroom.
There is a HUGE financial stake in making this a crime of some kind instead of a nautical issue, so the prosecution does have a pretty good motive. All involved had better have a solid paper trail that they did nothing wrong.

I wonder if the Mayor’s office has some info that is not yet public to file this lawsuit or is it in response to the owners/managers filing their limited liability claim. Irrespective, would be good to have the owners/managers have their insurance involved in the legal claims, but take some responsibility, own up, participate financially and be part of the effort to secure funding to re-build the Bridge. But I guess this is the only way is to bring them to the table (court). I know the legal reference to Gross negligence GN and wilful misconduct WN are unique American legal lingo and if they can make it stick it can be very punitive. Just my thoughts. You may have a different YMMV – learnt something new today … had to look it up! :slight_smile:

The billing hours are well underway to put a nautical flavor on things.

In the United States, the admiralty court exercises jurisdiction over all admiralty and maritime actions, comprising two types of cases: (1) those involving acts committed on the high seas or other navigable waters, including prize cases and torts, injuries, and crimes committed on the high seas, and (2) those involving contracts and transactions connected with shipping employed on the seas or navigable waters.
Source: admiralty court | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This case involve a foreign flag ship (Singapore flag) so, although the incident happened in US navigable waters, not only US law applies.
Singapore Maritime Law is still applicable to the vessel and crew in respect of maritime activities.

Unless this becomes a criminal case (i.e. willful act or negligence by the Master, any members of the crew, Owner or Manager) it comes under International Maritime Laws as far as anything involving operational matters on board the vessel.

Singapore Maritime Authorities are responsible for investigating the incident (with participation by other involved parties) and issue final report in accordance with IMO rules and guidelines.

The chances are " ZERO" .
Pls ask Julian Assange, why He is scared shitless to be extradited to USA. Also check /read the M/V Hebei Spirit story, how the local public and politicians can affect/influence courts decissions.
Cheers