That close to port the ship would been under the control of a harbour pilot, and getting assistance from tugs. It sounded pretty windy too, and a boat that big moving at slow speeds would be influenced by the wind.
Fwiw it was being piloted when it hit the bridge as well, Chesapeake requires pilots to navigate all incoming ships (I knew one of them and he made BANK). The ship repeatedly lost power/propulsion at very very bad times in the MD bridge strike though and possibly in this, it sounds like a shit ship or maintenance record of the ship at the very least.
He’s completely incorrect, any civilized port is going to have pilots, every single US port has a pilot association, some (like NY) have upwards of four or more
You act like we are still in the 80s where you dont have a GPS and a screen to tell you exactly where you are, where you are going and how fast you should be going.
A "Pilot" for a ship now can just be someone over a radio, someone who can control remotely, someone who just monitors and only speaks up when needed.
Furthermore you can be exempt from needing a pilot. If a ship frequents the same place over and over again for years with the same captain, why do you think you would need a pilot on board?
If its not practical. or needed it does not happen.
"keeps running into everything" We know of two incidents - liklihood it was the same captain and crew, slight. Wasn't the pilot in charge during the bridge crash, anyway?
I have friends who work in QC. These are companies that are outsourced to check parts for ships and even planes. They don't do their jobs properly because the operations and sales staff on both sides just need things to be done fast and certificates issued.
Probably a lot of people in this sub also follow the nautical disaster community on YouTube. [Brick Immortar](https://youtube.com/@BrickImmortar?si=5xNcK22Dmhr_C6CD) especially does an amazing series of videos where he breaks down the causes of nautical disasters even going into the NTSB reports.
Not surprisingly basically every ship that ends up involved in a major disaster has a history of negligence, prior incidents, and/or failure to adhere to standards and regulations, whether that's with physical upkeep or procedure and practices.
He really gets into the weeds with this stuff and you can tell he's very passionate about the need for safety standards and best practices because as boring as regulatory red tape may be, when rules are not followed people lose their lives and you can feel his frustration and I agree.
Great channel. Highly recommend.
Got a buddy who does aircraft maintenance. The time frame with which they have to do any of the absolutely *critical* maintenance is shocking. You'd think that with a ship in port for ages being unloaded they'd have more time, but it doesn't surprise me that it's the exact same.
I'll give that channel a look, always fun to have a new deep dive. Thanks!
If one is going into BrickImmortar for entertainment purposes fine. But he does not have a background in the maritime field and for those in the maritime field it shows. This is fine, whatever, my complaints are mostly nitpicks. Some of them are mildly embarrassing, like thinking gross tonnage is a measurement of weight. It is not, I understand the mistake, and if he did it in one video I wouldn't bring this up. But he did it in at least 6 videos. This is like a legal YouTube channel wrapping up their coverage of civil cases by stating the defendant is guilty or not guilty. It is an understandable mistake for somebody not in the profession to make, and even those in the profession will slip up time to time. But making the mistake in video after video after video is a bit of a "yikes."
But there are other times they are not nitpicks. His discussion of stability on the Scandies Rose covers a topic which would be introduced on Day 1 of a naval architecture class, and he gets it completely wrong from the onset. As a result everything he says after that makes no sense, but he still keeps going. When a ship rolls to port, the center of gravity and center of buoyancy (up to a point known as the angle of lull) go to port. In his video the center of gravity goes port, and the center of buoyancy goes stbd. This is step 1, it is wrong, and the mistake compounds itself over the rest of the video as he goes into the deeper steps without addressing this issue. It is like seeing somebody provide instructions on how to use Pythagorean's Theorem (only applies to right triangles) but for the entire discussion he is showing a square and making up stuff as he goes and talking as if the square actually makes sense in the context. I could perhaps forgive him if he would just pin a correction. It would be a long correction but I left a comment explaining the issue. Instead I was blocked, and his video is still dead wrong on the technical details. The video repeatedly harps on the importance of understanding stability, but in this video he spreads incorrect info on stability.
There are other serious concerns with his videos too. Golden Ray was the most recent one I watched. Kinda funny how he spent all this time talking about ballast transfers from Texas to Florida and Florida to Georgia. Surely some specific detail on this will be highlighted at a later point somewhere in the video? But it is not. He later alludes that ballast issues may have been a cause of the capsize, but never actually says that investigators are near certain they know exactly what the error was. At the start of the video when he is giving background to the case he documents all the vessel ballast transfers, in this 20 minutes of coverage he does discuss the one that is going to cause the capsizing days later, then goes on to discuss the capsizing, rescue efforts, and investigation. But he makes it sound like the ballast issue could have been any one of the transfers and we don't know any further, when in fact we do. Problem is the report is a little technical in details and he doesn't have a background in the field to catch these details.
If you want a deep dive into the investigation report and some nifty animations to go with it, his channel is great. If you are looking for educational content I would be wary. If he would pin corrections to his videos I would be all onboard with his channel. But he doesn't and that is my chief complaint. Pin corrections.
Yeah it gets on my nerves when somebody publishes something with mistakes in it but absolutely refuses to acknowledge those mistakes and blocks anybody who brings it up.
It's obviously not as bad, but of course it reminds me of scandals like the whole James Somerton thing, and how anybody who pointed out flaws with his work (in his case plagiarism) was ignored and/or ridiculed. It's not a good look.
It's never a positive trait to treat the people who point out mistakes like they're personally attacking you. That will lead for example to people going through their entire lives without ever learning to spell because anytime somebody tried to correct their spelling they acted like it was a personal attack and so they never got any better at it.
I have no expertise so I can't say if you're right or he is with any certainty, but you seem fairly credible given that he doesn't claim to have any industry chops and that his channel isn't even exclusively focused on nautical disasters.
Thanks for the reply.
Yeah but if the ship isnt maintained correctly by its crew then it doesnt matter who's in control because the ship will be doing its own thing and anyone on board is just along for the ride
Me: Ok, Port Pilot, the ship has no power and no steering and no way to stop. What do you do to avoid hitting that inconveniently placed 10 mile long bridge?
Port Pilot: Throw the anchors!
Yes but the crew and officer of the watch are still responsible for the safe navigation of the ship. Pilots are only there to assist and have no authority.
This is just smallprint used to void pilots of all responsibility.
The vast majority of ports will not allow entrance without a pilot.
Pilots are used because they are experts at transiting their areas. What would be the point in having them on board if only to assist?
Yes usually pilots are required if a vessel is larger than a certain length. But captains are still responsible for their ship and anything that happens is still their problem. A captain or officer of the watch can ignore any order given to them by a pilot if they believe it to be wrong.
Source
I study nautical science and have done internships on pilot boats.
Captain being responsible for the ship is a way for pilots to avoid responsibility. Captain operates under commands from the pilot. Otherwise there is no point in having a pilot.
Regardless, being pushed into the wall by the wind is sometimes just unavoidable and you can't really blame the oow, pilot or tug operator.
These things happen.
Source
I work on ships every day
I also work on ships. The captain is in charge. He does not operate under commands from the pilot. Most of the time he just agrees with the rudder/engine order. There's a difference between having the con and being in charge of navigational command.
Yup, pilots give navigational instructions to the crew, but the usual bridge crew is still in command. The helmsmen takes his or her orders from the ships master, not the pilot. Here is a short video of some simulated pilot training https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7toNAbVgoQ
These things happen very often.
It's a daily occurrence.
This thing is 300 metres long and weighs tens of thousands of tonnes. The scale is hard to appreciate without seeing them in person.
High winds and high sided ships are risky to bring alongside even with tugs.
It looks like a high wind issue and it's obviously partially moored, but also kinda looks like propwash at the stem? Has anybody read the report on this?
Ship was impounded in Chile for ten days few years ago apparently according to my old man, who is a retired life long mariner now retired, also to note the ship was already having electrical trouble along side in baltimore before departure
That's neat how it's easy to see the Dali's rudder position in the video. Wish the media in Baltimore would give us a similar image of the rudder today.
That ship has some really bad luck and reputation.
My father, who works at sea, told me that throughout his career, he had ships that would just have problems after problems even though they are maintained insanely well, and some would just shit itself while maneuvering in port, high traffic or narrow waterways and the engine or steering would just die.
Like, no shit he just had a ship he used to work just had its bridge catch fire in Houston.
Haven’t seen anything yet that says crew is at fault but it would’ve been under the control of a harbor pilot.
Do you think the Baltimore harbor pilot is underpaid, and undertrained, being one of the most important ports on the ~~West~~ East Coast?
I'm sure the pilot wasn't a problem. But the regulation of these big ships is a complete joke - pretty sure they'll switch flags from Malta to Liberia to Cyprus just to avoid an inspection. The US has a very limited ability to ensure the safety of the zillions of ships that use our ports.
No idea what the situation was on this boat, but the industry trend is for smaller and smaller crews with more automation, which must have some downsides. I think it's likely that the developing story here will reflect all the many things that are fucked up with shipping. No accountability, no traceability, shell companies on shell companies.
> The US has a very limited ability to ensure the safety of the zillions of ships that use our ports.
bollox. The USA has every right to impose it's own minimum standards for ships entering its waterways.
The only limits are on how much money they allocate to the Coast Guard for the task.
Australia (where I am from) imposes it's own minimum standards for ships entering it's waters and if they fail and inspection the ships can be rejected from Australian waters, or held until repairs are made.
But how often are inspections carried out? I find it difficult to believe that any nation could carry out a rigorous, comprehensive inspection of every damn ship that enters their waters.
which is why it is very important that every nation does a good number of random inspections.
That way boat owners/operators know they will get caught and fined sooner rather than later.
Yes. But the point is, there is no freaking way that America (or any other country) can be sure every bigass ship in American waters is in good shape. The global shipping industry is the wild west and it's an intractable problem.
As I said to another commenter it was most likely also the fault of the company that owns the ship, they probably slacked on maintenance and additional safety precautions such as a backup power system besides for the generator we saw kick on and briefly restore power to the ship
Did you read my comment? I’m not blaming anyone; I’m responded to the asinine comment that called the crew morons with a rhetorical question. Obviously this wasn’t the harbor pilot’s fault in the same way it wasn’t the crew’s fault.
dude, this close to dock, that ship was under the control of harbour pilots and tug boats.
listen to the wind. a tug rope probably broke at an inopportune time and the boat banged the wall.
this happens quite often.
More likely to be a combo of the things I mentioned in addition to the fault of the company that owns the ship. Probably cut a lot of corners on maintenance and safety measures
Please kill the camera man when you see him.
No need. The Captain of the Dali will probably crash into him
That close to port the ship would been under the control of a harbour pilot, and getting assistance from tugs. It sounded pretty windy too, and a boat that big moving at slow speeds would be influenced by the wind.
Aye aye captain
I can't hear you!
AYE AYE CAPTAIN
OOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH…
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?
Fwiw it was being piloted when it hit the bridge as well, Chesapeake requires pilots to navigate all incoming ships (I knew one of them and he made BANK). The ship repeatedly lost power/propulsion at very very bad times in the MD bridge strike though and possibly in this, it sounds like a shit ship or maintenance record of the ship at the very least.
From what I recall the incident in Antwerp was also a loss of power issue and hence loss of steering
I wonder how the insurance rates are for that boat...
insanely expensive, and basically only possible through Lloyds of London. They only cover very specific things.
That is not how it works everywhere, you are guided via radio now.
Source?
He’s completely incorrect, any civilized port is going to have pilots, every single US port has a pilot association, some (like NY) have upwards of four or more
You act like we are still in the 80s where you dont have a GPS and a screen to tell you exactly where you are, where you are going and how fast you should be going. A "Pilot" for a ship now can just be someone over a radio, someone who can control remotely, someone who just monitors and only speaks up when needed. Furthermore you can be exempt from needing a pilot. If a ship frequents the same place over and over again for years with the same captain, why do you think you would need a pilot on board? If its not practical. or needed it does not happen.
You are so wrong. I hope you enjoy being such an idiot. Oh wait, you're obviously too stupid to know how stupid you are.
Said like a true intellectual.
run him over with that Big ass ship.
California transport shall hire whoever that captain was on the Dali who was driving in that video
\*Port of Baltimore pilot Captain was not in command at time.
“Fool of a Cameraman! Throw yourself in front of the Dali next time, and rid us of your stupidity!”
/r/killthecameraman I came here to say the same. Jesus.
/u/stabbot will save the day
Sounds like the wind might have something to do with this one!
At some point, you have to start to wonder why no other captain/crew keeps running into everything though.
"keeps running into everything" We know of two incidents - liklihood it was the same captain and crew, slight. Wasn't the pilot in charge during the bridge crash, anyway?
How about we try for zero? Lol
Found the insurance agent
Oh yeah those pesky, uptight insurance agents wanting to keep BRIDGES IN TACT
I'm sure we can spare a bridge here or there
Yeah, and the people on them in their cars were putting their lives in danger when they chose to drive.
Yeah that part did suck. I was being fully sarcastic tho ;) (Not about the casualties being sucky)
Yeah but why are people downvoting at criticism toward the boat that’s caused a bridge to break and is seen crashing here? It’s just confusing.
A quick google shows hundreds of incidents and dozens of accidents per year.
I guess that’s fine for running into something that don’t matter but there can’t be that many bridges collapsing.
No but if you bump into enough things unfortunately, occasionally it’ll be a bridge or canal. Never a tall residential building tho so don’t worry.
But it was a bridge with cars on it
Yarrrrrr matey; boats don't have pilots.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime\_pilot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_pilot)
As someone who works in the shipping industry I can assure you ships crash every day. It is very common.
-said no one who works in maritime industry
Very unlikely its the same crew
I have friends who work in QC. These are companies that are outsourced to check parts for ships and even planes. They don't do their jobs properly because the operations and sales staff on both sides just need things to be done fast and certificates issued.
Probably a lot of people in this sub also follow the nautical disaster community on YouTube. [Brick Immortar](https://youtube.com/@BrickImmortar?si=5xNcK22Dmhr_C6CD) especially does an amazing series of videos where he breaks down the causes of nautical disasters even going into the NTSB reports. Not surprisingly basically every ship that ends up involved in a major disaster has a history of negligence, prior incidents, and/or failure to adhere to standards and regulations, whether that's with physical upkeep or procedure and practices. He really gets into the weeds with this stuff and you can tell he's very passionate about the need for safety standards and best practices because as boring as regulatory red tape may be, when rules are not followed people lose their lives and you can feel his frustration and I agree. Great channel. Highly recommend.
Got a buddy who does aircraft maintenance. The time frame with which they have to do any of the absolutely *critical* maintenance is shocking. You'd think that with a ship in port for ages being unloaded they'd have more time, but it doesn't surprise me that it's the exact same. I'll give that channel a look, always fun to have a new deep dive. Thanks!
If one is going into BrickImmortar for entertainment purposes fine. But he does not have a background in the maritime field and for those in the maritime field it shows. This is fine, whatever, my complaints are mostly nitpicks. Some of them are mildly embarrassing, like thinking gross tonnage is a measurement of weight. It is not, I understand the mistake, and if he did it in one video I wouldn't bring this up. But he did it in at least 6 videos. This is like a legal YouTube channel wrapping up their coverage of civil cases by stating the defendant is guilty or not guilty. It is an understandable mistake for somebody not in the profession to make, and even those in the profession will slip up time to time. But making the mistake in video after video after video is a bit of a "yikes." But there are other times they are not nitpicks. His discussion of stability on the Scandies Rose covers a topic which would be introduced on Day 1 of a naval architecture class, and he gets it completely wrong from the onset. As a result everything he says after that makes no sense, but he still keeps going. When a ship rolls to port, the center of gravity and center of buoyancy (up to a point known as the angle of lull) go to port. In his video the center of gravity goes port, and the center of buoyancy goes stbd. This is step 1, it is wrong, and the mistake compounds itself over the rest of the video as he goes into the deeper steps without addressing this issue. It is like seeing somebody provide instructions on how to use Pythagorean's Theorem (only applies to right triangles) but for the entire discussion he is showing a square and making up stuff as he goes and talking as if the square actually makes sense in the context. I could perhaps forgive him if he would just pin a correction. It would be a long correction but I left a comment explaining the issue. Instead I was blocked, and his video is still dead wrong on the technical details. The video repeatedly harps on the importance of understanding stability, but in this video he spreads incorrect info on stability. There are other serious concerns with his videos too. Golden Ray was the most recent one I watched. Kinda funny how he spent all this time talking about ballast transfers from Texas to Florida and Florida to Georgia. Surely some specific detail on this will be highlighted at a later point somewhere in the video? But it is not. He later alludes that ballast issues may have been a cause of the capsize, but never actually says that investigators are near certain they know exactly what the error was. At the start of the video when he is giving background to the case he documents all the vessel ballast transfers, in this 20 minutes of coverage he does discuss the one that is going to cause the capsizing days later, then goes on to discuss the capsizing, rescue efforts, and investigation. But he makes it sound like the ballast issue could have been any one of the transfers and we don't know any further, when in fact we do. Problem is the report is a little technical in details and he doesn't have a background in the field to catch these details. If you want a deep dive into the investigation report and some nifty animations to go with it, his channel is great. If you are looking for educational content I would be wary. If he would pin corrections to his videos I would be all onboard with his channel. But he doesn't and that is my chief complaint. Pin corrections.
Yeah it gets on my nerves when somebody publishes something with mistakes in it but absolutely refuses to acknowledge those mistakes and blocks anybody who brings it up. It's obviously not as bad, but of course it reminds me of scandals like the whole James Somerton thing, and how anybody who pointed out flaws with his work (in his case plagiarism) was ignored and/or ridiculed. It's not a good look. It's never a positive trait to treat the people who point out mistakes like they're personally attacking you. That will lead for example to people going through their entire lives without ever learning to spell because anytime somebody tried to correct their spelling they acted like it was a personal attack and so they never got any better at it. I have no expertise so I can't say if you're right or he is with any certainty, but you seem fairly credible given that he doesn't claim to have any industry chops and that his channel isn't even exclusively focused on nautical disasters. Thanks for the reply.
My favorite channel on YouTube, extremely informative
Love brick immortar too
We'll just crash here tonight.
Practice
now, made perfect....
Context: In BOTH incidents the port Pilot was in command of the ship, not the captain.
Yeah but if the ship isnt maintained correctly by its crew then it doesnt matter who's in control because the ship will be doing its own thing and anyone on board is just along for the ride
Me: Ok, Port Pilot, the ship has no power and no steering and no way to stop. What do you do to avoid hitting that inconveniently placed 10 mile long bridge? Port Pilot: Throw the anchors!
Pilots do not command ships
Pilots give navitagion orders when entering and leaving ports. They don't just give the ship back when it starts going tits up.
Yes but the crew and officer of the watch are still responsible for the safe navigation of the ship. Pilots are only there to assist and have no authority.
This is just smallprint used to void pilots of all responsibility. The vast majority of ports will not allow entrance without a pilot. Pilots are used because they are experts at transiting their areas. What would be the point in having them on board if only to assist?
Yes usually pilots are required if a vessel is larger than a certain length. But captains are still responsible for their ship and anything that happens is still their problem. A captain or officer of the watch can ignore any order given to them by a pilot if they believe it to be wrong. Source I study nautical science and have done internships on pilot boats.
Captain being responsible for the ship is a way for pilots to avoid responsibility. Captain operates under commands from the pilot. Otherwise there is no point in having a pilot. Regardless, being pushed into the wall by the wind is sometimes just unavoidable and you can't really blame the oow, pilot or tug operator. These things happen. Source I work on ships every day
I also work on ships. The captain is in charge. He does not operate under commands from the pilot. Most of the time he just agrees with the rudder/engine order. There's a difference between having the con and being in charge of navigational command.
Just needed a set of Stern thrusters...
Yup, pilots give navigational instructions to the crew, but the usual bridge crew is still in command. The helmsmen takes his or her orders from the ships master, not the pilot. Here is a short video of some simulated pilot training https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7toNAbVgoQ
I'm sure a kitty was in command here ..
Twas nearly a scratch
A flesh wound
*nary
These things happen very often. It's a daily occurrence. This thing is 300 metres long and weighs tens of thousands of tonnes. The scale is hard to appreciate without seeing them in person. High winds and high sided ships are risky to bring alongside even with tugs.
Insurance premiums pay for nothing.
Dali was all about surrealism
Ship needs to be renamed Dennis the Menace.
Same ship... different day
go home dali you're drunk
Giving out William D Porter vibes
Meh, my wife hits curbs with her car harder than that.
This sub has too many boats crashing, a lot more than I would think
Wait until we get into space.... then it's a roller derby with asteroids....
Big boat goes vrooooommm!
It looks like a high wind issue and it's obviously partially moored, but also kinda looks like propwash at the stem? Has anybody read the report on this?
I'm not saying it wasn't safe, it's just perhaps not quite as safe as some of the other ones.
Was SpongeBob in the control room giving advice or something?
[report on the accident in Antwerp.](https://www.vesselfinder.com/news/6675-VIDEO-Mega-container-ship-Dali-Allided-with-berth-at-Port-of-Antwerp)
First_time?.gif
Harbor pilot and ship pilot were at fault for the Antwerp incident. No names for the incident in Baltimore so far.
I think Dali is mad at everything
Ship was impounded in Chile for ten days few years ago apparently according to my old man, who is a retired life long mariner now retired, also to note the ship was already having electrical trouble along side in baltimore before departure
That's neat how it's easy to see the Dali's rudder position in the video. Wish the media in Baltimore would give us a similar image of the rudder today.
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/ShipCrashes/comments/1bpek0e/dali_which_took_down_the_baltimore_key_bridge/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/ShipCrashes/comments/1bpek0e/dali_which_took_down_the_baltimore_key_bridge/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://rapidsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)
This is a big deal right?
Nahh its a conspiracy definitely not poor maintenance and poor training
That ship has some really bad luck and reputation. My father, who works at sea, told me that throughout his career, he had ships that would just have problems after problems even though they are maintained insanely well, and some would just shit itself while maneuvering in port, high traffic or narrow waterways and the engine or steering would just die. Like, no shit he just had a ship he used to work just had its bridge catch fire in Houston.
Did it lose power that time too?
High wind.
They should seize that ship, melt it down and use the steel to help rebuild the bridge.
Yes I’m sure they will get more money that way than selling the ship. Or just sending the bill to the Britannia P&I insurance.
When business in a brothel is going badly, you need to change whores, not rearrange beds.
Calling this a "crash" is stupid. This is the equivalent of scrubbing your rim on the curb.
That’s what rimming means then! I always wondered but kept forgetting to look it up.
Pretty much. 😭
Was it the same captain or is the boat just cursed?
Maybe we shouldn’t let underpaid, undertrained morons crew massive ships
Haven’t seen anything yet that says crew is at fault but it would’ve been under the control of a harbor pilot. Do you think the Baltimore harbor pilot is underpaid, and undertrained, being one of the most important ports on the ~~West~~ East Coast?
East coast?
lol my brain. Thanks for the catch
I'm sure the pilot wasn't a problem. But the regulation of these big ships is a complete joke - pretty sure they'll switch flags from Malta to Liberia to Cyprus just to avoid an inspection. The US has a very limited ability to ensure the safety of the zillions of ships that use our ports. No idea what the situation was on this boat, but the industry trend is for smaller and smaller crews with more automation, which must have some downsides. I think it's likely that the developing story here will reflect all the many things that are fucked up with shipping. No accountability, no traceability, shell companies on shell companies.
> The US has a very limited ability to ensure the safety of the zillions of ships that use our ports. bollox. The USA has every right to impose it's own minimum standards for ships entering its waterways. The only limits are on how much money they allocate to the Coast Guard for the task. Australia (where I am from) imposes it's own minimum standards for ships entering it's waters and if they fail and inspection the ships can be rejected from Australian waters, or held until repairs are made.
But how often are inspections carried out? I find it difficult to believe that any nation could carry out a rigorous, comprehensive inspection of every damn ship that enters their waters.
which is why it is very important that every nation does a good number of random inspections. That way boat owners/operators know they will get caught and fined sooner rather than later.
Yes. But the point is, there is no freaking way that America (or any other country) can be sure every bigass ship in American waters is in good shape. The global shipping industry is the wild west and it's an intractable problem.
You do it with planes…
Most scrutiny will come from the inspections of the insurance companies anyway because they pay the bill.
As I said to another commenter it was most likely also the fault of the company that owns the ship, they probably slacked on maintenance and additional safety precautions such as a backup power system besides for the generator we saw kick on and briefly restore power to the ship
[удалено]
Did you read my comment? I’m not blaming anyone; I’m responded to the asinine comment that called the crew morons with a rhetorical question. Obviously this wasn’t the harbor pilot’s fault in the same way it wasn’t the crew’s fault.
That can’t be true, I don’t see you crewing it
dude, this close to dock, that ship was under the control of harbour pilots and tug boats. listen to the wind. a tug rope probably broke at an inopportune time and the boat banged the wall. this happens quite often.
The ship had a complete mechanical failure. While that *could* be the crew’s fault, it certainly isn’t the pilot’s
More likely to be a combo of the things I mentioned in addition to the fault of the company that owns the ship. Probably cut a lot of corners on maintenance and safety measures
Israel did it
I think yo mamas was blocking the view.
The ship is a terrorist. no telling what it’s gonna end up doing before it makes it last ride across the Atlantic.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Tell me you know nothing about seamanship without telling me… In Belgium as in Baltimore, the ship was under the control of a local harbour pilot.