Baltimore bridge collapse
Discussion
Stick Legs said:
General Average is a maritime law principle going back to the days of Phonecian galleys.
Essentially it works like this:
Bob sends his machinery from Canada to Japan on a ship. Steve sends his whiskey & John sends his tractors.
That same ship is also carrying Jim’s timber as a deck cargo.
During the voyage the ship hits a storm.
The Master decides to jettison the timber deck cargo, as soaked in rain & spray it has become too heavy & a liability to the ship’s stability.
Jim was smart & insured his cargo.
Jim’s insurers then contact Bob, Steve & John’s insurers with the very fair & valid claim that had the timber not been jettisoned then they all would have been out of pocket.
The loss is averaged across the holders of cargo on that vessel, usually on a value basis.
I cannot see how GA is being perused here, unless some how it can be proven that hitting the bridge was a deliberate act to prevent a greater peril.
I await to be educated.
Presumably Jim could have paid more and had his timber stowed in the hold ? So essentially the others are penalised for Jim's parsimoney ?Essentially it works like this:
Bob sends his machinery from Canada to Japan on a ship. Steve sends his whiskey & John sends his tractors.
That same ship is also carrying Jim’s timber as a deck cargo.
During the voyage the ship hits a storm.
The Master decides to jettison the timber deck cargo, as soaked in rain & spray it has become too heavy & a liability to the ship’s stability.
Jim was smart & insured his cargo.
Jim’s insurers then contact Bob, Steve & John’s insurers with the very fair & valid claim that had the timber not been jettisoned then they all would have been out of pocket.
The loss is averaged across the holders of cargo on that vessel, usually on a value basis.
I cannot see how GA is being perused here, unless some how it can be proven that hitting the bridge was a deliberate act to prevent a greater peril.
I await to be educated.
Not quite.
The cost of shipping vs value per m3 and low stowage factor of timber, added to it’s unique quality of being buoyant and non polluting means that the traditional way of carrying it is on deck with other cargoes.
Timber lashings are designed to be quick release from a single point to allow a greater volume of timber to be carried on deck than would normally be allowed.
Hence why it’s always the sacrificial cargo in a GA example.
On container ships the freight rate is the same & the shipper never knows if their cargo is on deck or below.
But if it were allowed to fall overboard due to a fire in another box on that stack, and the whole stack lost then GA would apply.
The cost of shipping vs value per m3 and low stowage factor of timber, added to it’s unique quality of being buoyant and non polluting means that the traditional way of carrying it is on deck with other cargoes.
Timber lashings are designed to be quick release from a single point to allow a greater volume of timber to be carried on deck than would normally be allowed.
Hence why it’s always the sacrificial cargo in a GA example.
On container ships the freight rate is the same & the shipper never knows if their cargo is on deck or below.
But if it were allowed to fall overboard due to a fire in another box on that stack, and the whole stack lost then GA would apply.
Stick Legs said:
stuff.....
I cannot see how GA is being perused here, unless some how it can be proven that hitting the bridge was a deliberate act to prevent a greater peril.
I await to be educated.
Awesome description thanks.I cannot see how GA is being perused here, unless some how it can be proven that hitting the bridge was a deliberate act to prevent a greater peril.
I await to be educated.
I think its more a case of -
Insurance company A is about to receive the mother of all arse f
kingsInsurance company A is short on lube
Insurance company A knows insurance companies B, C, D, E, F, G & H has some lube stockpiled and therefore they should to take some of the reaming thats about to be dished out.
The lawyers have been released..........
808 Estate said:
Stick Legs said:
stuff.....
I cannot see how GA is being perused here, unless some how it can be proven that hitting the bridge was a deliberate act to prevent a greater peril.
I await to be educated.
Awesome description thanks.I cannot see how GA is being perused here, unless some how it can be proven that hitting the bridge was a deliberate act to prevent a greater peril.
I await to be educated.
I think its more a case of -
Insurance company A is about to receive the mother of all arse f
kingsInsurance company A is short on lube
Insurance company A knows insurance companies B, C, D, E, F, G & H has some lube stockpiled and therefore they should to take some of the reaming thats about to be dished out.
The lawyers have been released..........
Stick Legs said:
hidetheelephants said:
The containers in the forwardmost stack that were crushed or knocked over the side by falling lumps of bridge did so sacrificially, martyring themselves for the greater good. 
That would not surprise me if it was the logic.He got up saying (IIRC) “I’m fine! My head shielded me from the impact.”
Alickadoo said:
Why is it a weird answer?
I pointed out that 6 people had lost their lives in Baltimore.
On average 5 people are killed EVERY day on Britain's roads.
And so on.
What is wrong with suggesting that a sense of proportion is kept?
It is not about the numbers it is the circumstances in which they died.I pointed out that 6 people had lost their lives in Baltimore.
On average 5 people are killed EVERY day on Britain's roads.
And so on.
What is wrong with suggesting that a sense of proportion is kept?
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: It's being reported that the pilot called the authorities within around 30 seconds of initially losing power which is why they were able to try to close the bridge so quickly.
It’s quite remarkable that they actually had people at either end of the bridge that were able to attempt full closure particularly given the hour Earthdweller said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: It's being reported that the pilot called the authorities within around 30 seconds of initially losing power which is why they were able to try to close the bridge so quickly.
It’s quite remarkable that they actually had people at either end of the bridge that were able to attempt full closure particularly given the hour What I'm confused by is the tracking from VesselFinder. Comparing it to the voice recorder data, it looks like the ship turned towards the bridge pier at the time that the port anchor was dropped.
Assuming the anchors are at the bow, presumably this is expected behaviour in the absence of steering and/or power?
Does this suggest that, in fact, had the starboard anchor been dropped (or even no anchor dropped) that the Dali could have made it under the bridge? Certainly the front view video seems to suggest that, just maybe, all the efforts to avoid collision actually caused it!
That said, on its original course, it looks like it might have then gone on to hit Fort Carroll...
Assuming the anchors are at the bow, presumably this is expected behaviour in the absence of steering and/or power?
Does this suggest that, in fact, had the starboard anchor been dropped (or even no anchor dropped) that the Dali could have made it under the bridge? Certainly the front view video seems to suggest that, just maybe, all the efforts to avoid collision actually caused it!
That said, on its original course, it looks like it might have then gone on to hit Fort Carroll...
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: It's being reported that the pilot called the authorities within around 30 seconds of initially losing power which is why they were able to try to close the bridge so quickly.
I saw that .. first thing he did was get his mobile phone out and ring the bridge and tell them to shut it Seems he was very switched on
hidetheelephants said:
Earthdweller said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: It's being reported that the pilot called the authorities within around 30 seconds of initially losing power which is why they were able to try to close the bridge so quickly.
It’s quite remarkable that they actually had people at either end of the bridge that were able to attempt full closure particularly given the hour 
skwdenyer said:
What I'm confused by is the tracking from VesselFinder. Comparing it to the voice recorder data, it looks like the ship turned towards the bridge pier at the time that the port anchor was dropped.
Assuming the anchors are at the bow, presumably this is expected behaviour in the absence of steering and/or power?
Does this suggest that, in fact, had the starboard anchor been dropped (or even no anchor dropped) that the Dali could have made it under the bridge? Certainly the front view video seems to suggest that, just maybe, all the efforts to avoid collision actually caused it!
That said, on its original course, it looks like it might have then gone on to hit Fort Carroll...
Maybe they thought doing that would turn it too much and made it go more sideways hitting the pier opening the ship up to sink, perhaps they were going for the "well if we're going to hit, hit it full front" and maybe get away with just bow damage.Assuming the anchors are at the bow, presumably this is expected behaviour in the absence of steering and/or power?
Does this suggest that, in fact, had the starboard anchor been dropped (or even no anchor dropped) that the Dali could have made it under the bridge? Certainly the front view video seems to suggest that, just maybe, all the efforts to avoid collision actually caused it!
That said, on its original course, it looks like it might have then gone on to hit Fort Carroll...
They could of course have just dropped automatically due to an electrical fault or in the darkness able seaman Dougal pressed the wrong button.
I'm sure we will all find out and in usual US fashion no one American will get the blame.
pingu393 said:
Ultimately, aren't A to H all insured with Lloyd's as the insurer of last resort?
Lloyds isn't a single entity, it's a trading platform which acts as a market place where insurers accept risk and pool resources. A Lloyds based underwriter can go bankrupt, that doesn't make Lloyds bankrupt as they are just the facilitator of the market place.https://www.lloyds.com/about-lloyds/our-market
It's a similar system to the stock market, where the London Stock Exchange are the trading floor, but the traders work for themselves paying a fee to the LSE for the facilities.
FourWheelDrift said:
They could of course have just dropped automatically due to an electrical fault or in the darkness able seaman Dougal pressed the wrong button.
Not possible to drop automatically, all the machinery is manual; the falling debris could have released it through damaging the windlass or the guillotine.hidetheelephants said:
Earthdweller said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: It's being reported that the pilot called the authorities within around 30 seconds of initially losing power which is why they were able to try to close the bridge so quickly.
It’s quite remarkable that they actually had people at either end of the bridge that were able to attempt full closure particularly given the hour Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff