I was thinking same thing. The one I had (on a Sulzer 7RTA76 in the 1980’s) was an early attempt using what I considered at that time to be Rube Goldberg-esque arrangement. Hydraulic pumps diven by a gearbox mounted to main engine which drove hydraulic motors that drove the generator. (Think typical hydrostatic transmission). It had problems for sure but once it was on line before we went unattended and in the morning when I got to ER a SSDG was running on line. No alarms. Worked as designed. I imagine now they would just drive gen directly and use solid state power conversion/inversion apparatus like Siemens clean grid converters.
On the other thing never saw testing astern propulsion cause a blackout on any plant including diesel electric, slow speed direct, or medium speed geared/reversing. Some caused whistling sound coming from chiefs undercarriage but lights stayed on.
The shaft gen outputs to a control cabinet which uses frequency converters to maintain frequency and voltage with different shaft speeds. The control cabinet then supplies power to the breaker on the bus. It’s been a few years and I cannot remember if the control cabinet did the paralleling or if you could parallel manually to the bus; I only ever brought it online using the PMS.
The only issue we ever had with it was tripping due to high temp in the cabinet. A tech visited and performed a software update and there weren’t any problems after.
The only time we ever blacked out while running it was due to the main engine tripping on overspeed. ME Overspeed, ME Low Lube Oil Trip and ME E-Stop were the only shutdowns that would kick the shaft gen offline immediately without first bringing another gen on.
It was a lovely piece of technology but we didn’t get to use it as much as I’d like because the captains felt it slowed the ship too much (about 1/2 to 3/4 of a knot).
I’ve listened to the interview a couple of times now and I’m wondering if @john was talking about losing power not on the electrical side of things but on the propulsion side of things, like the ME tripped when going from ahead to astern. That’s not something that I’ve encountered or even really heard about, though I have seen several times an engine start up fine in the ahead direction but not in the astern direction.
Arguably splitting hairs, both of you are right, more or less
Conventionally, the term VLCS is employed for vessels with 10000-14500 TEU capacity, whereas those >14500 TEU are referred to as ULCS.
Thus Dali, with a nominal capacity of 9971 TEU [source: ClassNK] is a Post Panamax vessel that is 29 TEU short of proper membership of the VLCS category.
(All of which does not moot it being oversized for 1970ies infrastructure…)
No idea what he was talking about.
It was quite normal to test astern propulsion prior to arrival. To ensure our astern propulsion worked. It could be quite inconvenient if it didn’t when required.
It probably became a requirement for the same reason.
Never heard any suggestion this was anything to do with blackouts.
Routine pre departure checks included ME kicked over on air. To make sure all ok no water in cylinders ect.
Presume all the pre departure checks were done as per SOP. (You bet NTSB checking all SOP, Logs, VDR and asking lots of Questions)
Ship Departed OK
Load of Alarms.
The lights all went out.
The lights all came back on. Quite Quickly.
Pure guess stand by generator started. Auto start.
Pure Guess lot of black smoke. ME under big load. Possibly Going Astern. Attempt to reduce speed or stop.
As per normal ship swings to starboard.
Ship hits bridge.
Lights go out again.
Most Bridge Equipment has UPS. Most bridge equipment will alarm for loss of power. Most Keeps working.
Steering typically does not have UPS Half pumps powered by EMG all pumps powered by Stand By Gen.
Pure Guess, Steering Pumps Very loud Alarm. Pure Guess, Steering pumps may have to be restarted manually after loss of power. Maybe not. Some of the ones I have sailed with do.
Not mentioned in time line yet.
V/L Blackout.
Steering loss.
Concern RE potential ME Auto Shut Down.
Engine Orders Given to Stop Engine followed by Astern to try and stop or at least reduce speed.
When ME Stops steering much less effective.
When ME goes astern steering ineffective. Or overcome by prop walk.
May or May not be in Bridge Control. Bridge Control system is probably on UPS. Telegraph will Be.
Stand By Generator Start Lights come on.
Bridge crew still figuring out a ton of alarms.
Steering Pumps May or May not have been restarted. Rudder angle unknown.
V/L operating significant astern propulsion. Steering Overcome by normal prop walk. Bow swing to starboard.
At some point at least one anchor is let go. Which one and How much cable is deployed unknown
Vessel contacts Bridge.
Fortunately Mayday call transmitted and received traffic stopped from coming on to bridge
Cause of Blackout still unreported or unknown.
Was the blackout caused by incident or the cause of the incident, Unknown.
Why would Gen blackout? lots of possible reasons.
Why would 2 Gen blackout? Possible cascade, one fails due to one of many possible reasons. 2nd generator gets sudden load unable to provide enough power for overload and trips or fails.
Blackout.
Did going astern cause blackout? I don’t know. cant think of any particular reason why it would. other than sudden load but the sudden load would be on ME not Diesel Generators.
Does this vessel have shaft generators? Why would it have shaft generators? No good reason I can think off. Any particular reason why shaft generators couldn’t be used at sea. I’m out of date so maybe as suggested by experts above some do.
Other than you don’t get power for free. I have sailed with SG on CPP running constant RPM. Its not the most efficient system but has the advantage on a vessel doing a lot of maneuvering in confined waters. You don’t have to run diesel generators so overall fuel consumption might be less.
This type of vessel and engine would probably be much more efficient to use a waste heat from exhaust gasses to run economizer boiler system to power a TA. This system is not good for doing much at maneuvering speed in confined waters. It does work really well on longer more open passage where ship can run at steady speed. Again Diesels can be shut down. and you are not burning fuel in ME to turn a shaft generator. Of course I am to old to be an expert so I may be out of date.
Under normal operation yes.
Bridge Control Yes.
ECR Control, Old Geordie Engineer.
In extremis it can be done. Not recommended.
Attempting to go Astern while still moving to fast ahead.
Even though engine stopped, cam in astern position. The Engine may stall. Or worse if going to fast though the water the screw will turn and the engine can start up going the wrong way
I’ve seen it done it tends to really piss the CE off. When smoke comes out the intakes.
Its something you should always check, Which way did the engine fire up and did you get the RPM you want. If you get the wrong direction stop right way. Let your speed drop try again.
Tends to test the Capt.'s stern gland.
If the weather is bad get your speed down early so you can use your power when you need it.
Don’t approach a dock or anything else any faster than you are prepared to hit it. Nobody will thank you for trying.
Doubt if it has any relevance here, There was no apparent or reported reason to go astern until after the lights went out. And she probably wasn’t going to fast through the water.
The big cloud of black smoke coming out the funnel the engine was heavily loaded but going the way it was intended.
Thank You very much. I am just going through DR.Sal video clip .Have listened to it already three times ( I am not a native speaker) and secured the transcript of the whole clip. Having said that i am seriously thinking about opening a utube channel : debunking what the ship and Dr.Sal and CEO John K. .
I consider this not because I am a vicious SOB but because I love the channel and am very much concerned about it’s credibility. I will revert with my findings later in the day .Trust all will find my findings interesting. And yes , my early estimate of claims was very conservative , hence from 1 bln it need to be raised to abt 3.5 bil us crunchy and crispy dollars. Observation : once again the local community will benefit from extra jobs and business related to salvage and wreck removal.
Sal Mercogliano is another person who needs to have his commentaries discarded outright or at least heavily scrutinized. Yes, he is a licensed 2nd mate but on its face it proves his never serving as a senior level ship’s officer. Further, his PhD. is in maritime history which is fine but how does his degrees qualify him to provide commentary regarding ship operations? His LinkedIn profile shows he has worked many years ago for MSC operations in Norfolk but never in commercial maritime operations or management (even at a junior level). Beyond that, all he has is academic experience and I am sorry but Campbell University hardly has a name people think of in our industry. I mean, shouldn’t he be a department head or at least full professor at one of the Maritime Academies or Annapolis or the Naval War College or somewhere just a bit more prestigious than a school in Buies Creek just up the road from Peacock Crossing and Bunnlevel?
I am sorry but I just don’t see any real bona fides here to qualify him to have anything he says taken seriously.
I am also not going to say anything here concerning the 2nd gentleman mentioned however reading his LinkedIn bio is also lacking in having particular sailing experience previously questioned.
Doesn’t seem to be a requirement. 24/7 news, Social Media needs a steady stream of talking heads to fill all that time - and we all need them to fill us all with their opinions. This way we don’t need to take any time to actully do any real digging/learning on our own and put the work in to actully form our own opinion.
This way we are free to scroll to the next story, topic -
Just shows how with a website or YouTube channel you have become a defacto expert and a go to person for the media even though everything you claim might actually be farcical and without validity.
As far as I can find out the M/V Dali has a single Diesel engine with direct driven fixed pitch propeller.
The Main Engine is a MAN-B&W 9S90ME-C9.2 rated at 41,480 kW (55,630 hp) at 82.5 RPM.
Electricity is generated onboard by two 3,840 kW (5,150 hp) and two 4,400 kW (5,900 hp) auxiliary diesel generators.
No shaft generator, but an EMG per flag state, IMO and Class requirements.
(UPS for communication, VDR and instrumentation etc. also per requirements).
At last PSC (by USCG, NYC Sept. 2023) there were NO comments and NO faults found on the machinery, electric system, or the automation.
Shaft generators work well on feeder ships with a medium speed ME at 600 rpm with a CP propeller and a 4:1 gearbox giving 150rpm shaft. The generator is mounted on the gearbox. Two generators always running for manoeuvring and bow thruster on shaft generator. The emergency generator was able to run the required items in case of a blackout and was big enough to run the hotel load as well. During major overhaul the emergency generator was run up and the engineers worked in a silent engine room. On that vessel the shaft generator carried the ships load and 120 reefer boxes. Its use kept the hours low on the generators and reduced the maintenance.
Can everybody please just stop talking about shaft generators because this ship did not have one and if it did it would be absolute folly for them to try to be carrying a big load on it while in a harbor
I think what should be talked about is something that was mentioned very early on which is that Maersk would make all sorts of noise if extra generators were started when they believed was costing them too much fuel consumption. With shore monitoring of every system on board a ship these days a person cannot flush a toilet without shore management knowing about it.
If somehow it comes out that they were not running redundant generators on the critical buss and it can be shown that it was a directive from the charterer it’s going to give Maersk a pretty big black eye and a lot of liability but they probably were smart and didn’t put it in writing. Of course the master and chief should have told their bosses to tell Maersk to go to hell and run all the Gensets they felt were necessary for safety but everyone of us know how masters and chiefs are pressured to save pennies by bean counters who’ve never run a ship.
People need to look at the ship manager here and determine how in bed with AP Moller Group they are? They could very well have no independence in how the Maersk chartered ships they operate are run?
FS 310.1115 Bridge electronic navigation protection equipment; duty of pilot.—
Summary
(1) When a piloted vessel passes under a bridge located in a harbor, in the approaches to a harbor, or in a river, and when electronic navigation protection equipment is available, it is the duty of the pilot or certificated deputy pilot on board to use the electronic navigation protection equipment. If the electronic navigation protection equipment can be utilized only in conjunction with a portable device or devices located on board the piloted vessel, it is the responsibility of the pilot to bring such device or devices on board the piloted vessel and to remove such device or devices upon completion of the pilot’s duties aboard the piloted vessel.
(2) In the event that any electronic navigation protection equipment or portable device associated with such equipment malfunctions during the approach of a piloted vessel to a bridge and the bridge is not visible from a distance of at least 2 miles from the piloted vessel, the pilot shall not transit the bridge and shall take any prudent action available to avoid such transit.
Dont know the exact history of this part of Florida State code, but certainly sounds like a law you’d make after someone hit a bridge in restricted visibility.
have collected as of now almost all evidence of B.S. Cheers.