Baltimore bridge collapse

kvduff said:
... , higher highs and lower lows
Click to expand...

Not here, Sunday night my boat was on the bottom, first time in a few years. But yes to the lower lows. High wasn't changed that much.

Either way not enough to change the tidal flow.
 
villain style said:
Are you in?
Click to expand...

I don't come out. I own a slip over at Piney and that's where I will be until end of April. Having the boat short hauled the end of April, when it goes back in I will bring it over to SH 4/26.

EDIT: But the boat is ready to go. Started the girls up and put in fresh water already. Wife stocked the boat last Sunday. Let's Rock!
 
highslice said:
It's almost like they aimed the ship at the support.
Click to expand...

The Harbor Pilot put it in reverse instead of letting glide through. Was still out of the pocket for safe passage though. But if you look at the vid, you can tell when he put's it in reverse.
 
Skybolt said:
Not here, Sunday night my boat was on the bottom, first time in a few years. But yes to the lower lows. High wasn't changed that much.

Either way not enough to change the tidal flow.
Click to expand...
According to NOAA’s PORTS website, last night in Baltimore at midnight the tide was just about dead low, at 2 ft above MLLW, and two feet above the predicted low (which was MLLW). The tide didn’t start to rise again until about 4 am, well after the accident. Doesn’t appear there was much current at the time of the accident.
 
JeffM said:
According to NOAA’s PORTS website, last night in Baltimore at midnight the tide was just about dead low, at 2 ft above MLLW, and two feet above the predicted low (which was MLLW). The tide didn’t start to rise again until about 4 am, well after the accident. Doesn’t appear there was much current at the time of the accident.
Click to expand...

My house is off of Greenwood creek and there was little to no water at the dock. And in the narrows at piney, my boat was on the bottom yesterday. Definitely not 2ft above MLLW. Not that this has anything to do with this thread. Except there isn't much current by the bridge, not enough to move a loaded freighter at any rate.
 
Would you rather they wait and litigate or fix the bridge and go after the company and insurance after? Hope they get it fixed and my heart goes out to all involved in this tragedy!
 
Am I the only one thinking switchgear failure and not generator failure?

That puff of smoke when she lit back up, sure looks like a block load of an already running unit to me
 
West Coast said:
Would you rather they wait and litigate or fix the bridge and go after the company and insurance after? Hope they get it fixed and my heart goes out to all involved in this tragedy!
Click to expand...
Ya right. Like our government is going to go after anyone for money. Except for its own taxpayers.
 
Stray Current said:
Am I the only one thinking switchgear failure and not generator failure?

That puff of smoke when she lit back up, sure looks like a block load of an already running unit to me
Click to expand...

Most ships that size are electro-hydraulic gear switching. But yes the black smoke is the harbor pilot putting the ship in reverse, but it looks like only the stb went in gear. Causing the ship to swerve into the bridge. A real cluster F***
 
Skybolt said:
Most ships that size are electro-hydraulic gear switching. But yes the black smoke is the harbor pilot putting the ship in reverse, but it looks like only the stb went in gear. Causing the ship to swerve into the bridge. A real cluster F***
Click to expand...
It’s all speculation at this point but that was the first thing I thought when I saw the video anyway.

Kinda like the theory with the titanic, that if they put port full astern and hammered down on starboard and center they would have swung
 
Stray Current said:
It’s all speculation at this point but that was the first thing I thought when I saw the video anyway.

Kinda like the theory with the titanic, that if they put port full astern and hammered down on starboard and center they would have swung
Click to expand...

It is all speculation, but in that vid you can clearly see the ship swing hard to stb then they collided with the bridge. It's like the port engine didn't go into reverse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,183
Messages
1,428,097
Members
61,091
Latest member
dionb
Back
Top