|
|
|
|
|
|
by undecisive
808 days ago
|
|
|
As is often the case, the truth is far more complicated. Firstly, the bridge - while up to code - did not have the kinds of buffers that could have been installed, or arguably should have been installed [1] It isn't wrong to say that if you are going to authorise large container ships, if you are going to profit from large container ships as a harbour, and you are not going to invest properly in the infrastructure, you should take some of the blame when things inevitably go wrong. I don't know whether such buffers would have entirely saved the bridge or the people on it. It also isn't wrong to say that if you are operating a large container ship, you should ensure it has failsafes in case of power failure. I don't know what failsafes exist (emergency anchors? Some kind of manual rudder?) that would be effective on a ship that large. It also isn't wrong to say that given the public outcry, a scapegoat will likely be chosen, and it's more likely that they will scapegoat the foreigners rather than blame the politicians in charge of public spending. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/26/baltimore-br... |
|
|
All large vessels require emergency generators. The requirement is usually startup within 45s but better performance is generally expected.
Here is an in-depth look on how steering systems on such vessels work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JElUSyNIJGo