Baltimore bridge collapse
Discussion
LivLL said:
Weird answer?
Anyway Croyde they have published the names of the road workers.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/...
Such a shame as the Police were, from the audio, desperately trying to get a warning to them after stopping traffic at either end.
Why is it a weird answer?Anyway Croyde they have published the names of the road workers.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/...
Such a shame as the Police were, from the audio, desperately trying to get a warning to them after stopping traffic at either end.
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?
asfault said:
LimaDelta said:
BrettMRC said:
A two stroke diesel, (which I assume this is) will run on pretty much anything that it can get through the nozzle/injector - so I doubt it's a fuel quality issue...
It may burn, but if compatibility issues block up filters and prevent it from even getting to the engines, then it can conceivably cause a problem which means no matter how many generators you have, the lights are going off. We had one such issue in Venezuela many moons ago.Not saying it was the case here, but it is a possibility. Fuel is one of the few things which is common to all the engines on the vessel.
My point was that an issue with a single generator is not a serious problem to deal with - there are multiple sets for that reason. A problem with the fuel on the other hand, will effect all generators, and not be so easy to remedy.
Again, pure speculation, and I have no additional info on this specific incident. As always, the Swiss cheese effect means there will almost certainly be multiple contributary factors, which aligned in a very unfortunate way that night.
808 Estate said:
Seems to be talk of General Average being declared.
https://theloadstar.com/dali-cargo-owners-face-mas...
If the shipowners do declare general average, then good luck to them trying to persuade people to use them again in the future !https://theloadstar.com/dali-cargo-owners-face-mas...
Alickadoo said:
croyde said:
Have they published the names of the poor folk that died in this tragedy?
Wives, girlfriends, kids would have been expecting their loved ones home after a night shift
Do try to get a sense of proportion about things. It may well help you as you go through life.Wives, girlfriends, kids would have been expecting their loved ones home after a night shift
Six people were killed in the Baltimore bridge collapse.
On an average day day five people will be killed on Britain's roads.
Forty five people were killed in a South African coach crash.
Two thousand people die on an average day in the UK.
Y'know, empathy?
Within the context of this discussion - which is regarding the Baltimore bridge collapse, his point is entirely relevant to the discussion of this event.
We're not discussing UK road deaths, the South African bus crash or the overall UK daily mortality numbers.
As for your snide "it may help you as you go through life" - absolutely zero need for that whatsoever.
Edited by TheJimi on Friday 29th March 11:51
LimaDelta said:
No not really, the filters I was referring to are on the fuel processing system before it reaches the engines, whereas DPFs are an exhaust filter. Some marine diesels have them (scrubbers, passive regenerative, active burners, etc), but very unlikely to be a factor in this incident.
My point was that an issue with a single generator is not a serious problem to deal with - there are multiple sets for that reason. A problem with the fuel on the other hand, will effect all generators, and not be so easy to remedy.
Again, pure speculation, and I have no additional info on this specific incident. As always, the Swiss cheese effect means there will almost certainly be multiple contributary factors, which aligned in a very unfortunate way that night.
This ^ I don't think the vessel would have been using the shaft generator at that point in the voyage, more likely it was using the aux generator, which has a duty stand by. Looking at the video it looks like the first generator failed, and some seconds later the duty standby kicked in as indeed it is supposed to do. For that to fail almost straight away too would certainly suggest a fuel issue. These gen sets run on diesel (MDO) rather than the Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) that the main engine usually uses. The main engine is typically multi fuel, ie, they can use HFO or MDO and I think it was probably running MDO at this point because HFO is more often than not banned for use in and around ports. So it suggests some sort of contamination of the MDO fuel such that it "killed" both the gen sets and caused problems for the main engine. My point was that an issue with a single generator is not a serious problem to deal with - there are multiple sets for that reason. A problem with the fuel on the other hand, will effect all generators, and not be so easy to remedy.
Again, pure speculation, and I have no additional info on this specific incident. As always, the Swiss cheese effect means there will almost certainly be multiple contributary factors, which aligned in a very unfortunate way that night.
It's pure speculation, I know, but again in the video you see the main engine belching black smoke, as if it is being asked to do something it doesn't want to do. It will be interesting to see if the vessel took on any bunkers (fuel) whilst in port and whether the wrong type of fuel was loaded into the wrong fuel tanks.
TheJimi said:
Alickadoo said:
croyde said:
Have they published the names of the poor folk that died in this tragedy?
Wives, girlfriends, kids would have been expecting their loved ones home after a night shift
Do try to get a sense of proportion about things. It may well help you as you go through life.Wives, girlfriends, kids would have been expecting their loved ones home after a night shift
Six people were killed in the Baltimore bridge collapse.
On an average day day five people will be killed on Britain's roads.
Forty five people were killed in a South African coach crash.
Two thousand people die on an average day in the UK.
Y'know, empathy?
Within the context of this discussion - which is regarding the Baltimore bridge collapse, his point is entirely relevant to the discussion of this event.
We're not discussing UK road deaths, the South African bus crash or the overall UK daily mortality numbers.
As for your snide "it may help you as you go through life" - absolutely zero need for that whatsoever.
Edited by TheJimi on Friday 29th March 11:51
ChocolateFrog said:
That's the first time I've heard about General Average.
Does that mean if you'd paid to ship a car for example you'd now be partially liable personally or would that all be covered by whatever you paid to have the car shipped in the first place?
I was wondering the same. I always dreamed one day to ship my Land Rover to some far off place and drive it home. If it were on that ship, what would I be liable for personally?Does that mean if you'd paid to ship a car for example you'd now be partially liable personally or would that all be covered by whatever you paid to have the car shipped in the first place?
ChocolateFrog said:
That's the first time I've heard about General Average.
Does that mean if you'd paid to ship a car for example you'd now be partially liable personally or would that all be covered by whatever you paid to have the car shipped in the first place?
Likewise, trying to get my head round what it actually means Does that mean if you'd paid to ship a car for example you'd now be partially liable personally or would that all be covered by whatever you paid to have the car shipped in the first place?
Does it mean that if there’s a 1000 containers the cost of the full insurance claim is split equally 1000 ways between the owners of the containers or that the value of the contents of the individual containers is assessed and the costs divided that way?
ChocolateFrog said:
That's the first time I've heard about General Average.
Does that mean if you'd paid to ship a car for example you'd now be partially liable personally or would that all be covered by whatever you paid to have the car shipped in the first place?
Not if you insured it adequately. If you bought stuff on Alibaba you might be tempted to take goods FOB(Free On Board) as it's cheaper and your shipping agent said "it'll be reet", if your widgets were on the MV Dali you'd be right to be worried, whereas your competitor who does his homework and paid for CIF(Cost Insurance & Freight) will be fine as he's insured.Does that mean if you'd paid to ship a car for example you'd now be partially liable personally or would that all be covered by whatever you paid to have the car shipped in the first place?
ChocolateFrog said:
That's the first time I've heard about General Average.
Does that mean if you'd paid to ship a car for example you'd now be partially liable personally or would that all be covered by whatever you paid to have the car shipped in the first place?
Yeah, first I've heard of it too and was thinking much the same.Does that mean if you'd paid to ship a car for example you'd now be partially liable personally or would that all be covered by whatever you paid to have the car shipped in the first place?
As a complete layman who only read about General Average on this thread, my understanding is...
In the case of a ship's captain having the option to save the cargo, deliberately runs aground to avoid sinking, General Average can be used to pay for the salvage operation and recovery of the cargo.
Claiming General Average for the MV Dali is stretching the intent a bit far, but I have no doubt that lawyers will be paid big bucks to stretch the case.
I hope that someone who really knows about General Average will explain it.
In the case of a ship's captain having the option to save the cargo, deliberately runs aground to avoid sinking, General Average can be used to pay for the salvage operation and recovery of the cargo.
Claiming General Average for the MV Dali is stretching the intent a bit far, but I have no doubt that lawyers will be paid big bucks to stretch the case.
I hope that someone who really knows about General Average will explain it.
andymadmak said:
This ^ I don't think the vessel would have been using the shaft generator at that point in the voyage, more likely it was using the aux generator, which has a duty stand by. Looking at the video it looks like the first generator failed, and some seconds later the duty standby kicked in as indeed it is supposed to do. For that to fail almost straight away too would certainly suggest a fuel issue. These gen sets run on diesel (MDO) rather than the Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) that the main engine usually uses. The main engine is typically multi fuel, ie, they can use HFO or MDO and I think it was probably running MDO at this point because HFO is more often than not banned for use in and around ports. So it suggests some sort of contamination of the MDO fuel such that it "killed" both the gen sets and caused problems for the main engine.
It's pure speculation, I know, but again in the video you see the main engine belching black smoke, as if it is being asked to do something it doesn't want to do. It will be interesting to see if the vessel took on any bunkers (fuel) whilst in port and whether the wrong type of fuel was loaded into the wrong fuel tanks.
One of the links I posted had someone with seemingly-relevant experience wondering whether they’d fired up the engines immediately rather than waiting for the air pumps to spook up, resulting in massive smoke (and potential engine damage) in the hope of avoiding impact.It's pure speculation, I know, but again in the video you see the main engine belching black smoke, as if it is being asked to do something it doesn't want to do. It will be interesting to see if the vessel took on any bunkers (fuel) whilst in port and whether the wrong type of fuel was loaded into the wrong fuel tanks.
But there are other potential explanations for the smoke, obviously.
If as speculated the smoke is the main engine it's normal for them to smoke like that when accelerating, the AIS speed reading showed deceleration so it's a reasonable conclusion that astern power was ordered on the bridge and the main engine was running astern and slowing the ship. The blackout events do not seem to synchronise with the smoke as far as I can see. Maybe it's a load management/switchboard issue causing the blackouts. We'll have to wait for the coastguard preliminary or even the full report to learn what actually happened.
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.
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.
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.
I just have been, thanks, understand it now 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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff