amazing - I would imagine pilot associations will be putting pressure on port authorities and users to increase the use of these in the states - same such a tragic accident had to happen - but maybe some good comes out of it. And the systems all get safer.
This doesn’t necessarily mean there was an issue with blackouts/main engine loss, right? I’m no engineer so I’m not well acquainted with reefers in relation to the plant but I know when I trip the break for the winches up forward there’s never a concern we’re going to lose the plant.
With all those MARAD and MSC ships in there you can bet they’ll have that channel open ASAP
The engine is started by “turning” it with compressed air. There aren’t gearboxes or camshafts. They “reverse” the engine using compressed air if they need it to run astern. Usually you wait the propeller to stop rotating before reversing the engine (the propeller rotates even if the engine is not running if the ship is moving relatively fast), but in emergency situation you can do try to reverse it even if the propeller is still rotating ahead.
Thanks for posting a version which shows the collapse in real time… most of the videos have been showing slowed down, presumably to observe details of the event, but seeing it in real time gives a gruesome reality to the vision… I mean, a burst of cement dust, a second later the bridge goes THUNK and it is gone… wow…
No, between 6 and 10 kts is ideal for indirect (8+ years on ASD ship assist tugs)
Before we all get too excited by indirect towing and it’s abilities there is one elephant in the room.
Tankers are equipped with emergency towing arrangements that can take the forces generated by indirect towing that can more than exceed the Bollard Pull of the tug and by some margin. I have heard 2x and even 3x quoted.
A very large number of fairly large container ships had SWL of the bitts that could be easily exceeded by our fleet of 80t+ tugs.
It formed a part of our MPX to find out the SWL of the bitts as we had quite a few 80+ tonne BP tugs, and yes before you ask even on C lead Aft.
It was not uncommon to see 40t SWL and even lower than that. It was always part of my initial briefing with the tugs as to what percentage of power they could apply. I always used the caveat that if I needed more I would ask twice then it was my decision to pull the bitts out. Must say it never happened to me or did I ever hear it happen to anyone else as obviously SWL has a built in safety factor. I did ask the tugs to exceed the SWL on rare occasions. One I do remember was asking for full power on a 60t tug when I had 30t bitts. It was either that or plow into the stern of a ship on the next berth and possibly bring down the gantry cranes when the engine failed to fire astern on approach. IIRC the ship was in excess of 250m
Thanks for that 
On this type of container vessel , 10000 teu or more , there is 150 T bollard center fwd, for emgncy towing , have the chain in stby as well .
It’s been a while since I’ve worked on a big cargo ship so I can’t remember the regulations, but in this day and age there is no reason why large ships shouldn’t be required to have UPS batteries connected to their steering pumps, so they can still maintain steerage in the event of a power failure.
Maybe a really dumb question, but I am assuming the actual hydraulic rams and pumps were fine, the pumps just lacked power.
If this was on an airplane and it was that important, there would be 2 sets of pumps fed by 2 independent busses and if there was a bus tie it would have a breaker so one would not take out the other.
Also big DC motors are a thing, it seems like a backup battery pump could be installed somehow.
My observation : Your answer proves You are a pro in practical and theoretical terms and also regarding knowledge of regulations -ECA , etc , etc. This applies to a) b) and the other part. Spot on absolutely!!! And I am glad seeing your answer. Thank You
But having said that and having listened to Q&A session of both Gents perceived by some as experts in the field , is it fair to conclude that both have proven their " have beens long time ago" status. ?
Also in presenting their hypothesis they both have failed to do a proper research . Just saying.
244,
Agree with that. The large tankers are now fitted with CLA bitts with SWL ratings in the order of 165t.
What needs to be remembered, during indirect towage, is that the CLA bitts are not under direct load. A percentage of the load is taken by the rated fairlead when high load is applied.
Quite frankly, if I was put in the position of the “Dali” Pilot, I would not be concerned with the rating on the bitts……. I would instruct the aft gang to keep clear and apply what was required.
You’re hitting ports so fast that a split bus for maneuvering would probably need bigger or more generators to handle thrusters and the eventuality of prolonged generator downtime even if you have an even number of DGs. All that adds up to a lot of money. You’d have to crunch some numbers on how much you’d need to change but a box ship definitely can’t count on all of its generators working well.
Years ago I surveyed a container ship that had its centreline aft set of bitts pulled out. The Chinese built vessel was missing almost structural elements that were shown in the drawings.
Which only goes to show the value of class societies. Just give us our money and we will give you a piece of paper saying it was built like is was specified to be! Where are the underwriters calling bullshit on such practices?
That video is significantly sped up.
Do you have a link to this?
A lot of money is relative to what this ship is going to cost someone.
Why do you believe this?? The movement of the cement blasting out from the collision, looks reasonable for such an event…
Either way, most of the other available videos are obviously dramatically slowed down; the cement cloud looks like it is being launched through oil, and the speed of the collapsing bridge is absolutely not the speed at which steel collapses when it is released in air…
Later note:
Aye, it really is sped up substantially; I didn’t notice the timestamp at the top…
Mea culpa.