The main news channels show only the last ten seconds, which omits
anything useful for deducing cause. There is talk of contaminated
fuel, which likely would have been loaded in Baltimore.

..<https://twitter.com/Abramoloy/status/1772579083219619978>

Joe Gwinn

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:20:00 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:

>The main news channels show only the last ten seconds, which omits
>anything useful for deducing cause. There is talk of contaminated
>fuel, which likely would have been loaded in Baltimore.
>
>.<https://twitter.com/Abramoloy/status/1772579083219619978>
>
>Joe Gwinn

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/the-day-a-cargo-ship-crashed-into-sf-bay-bridge/

The SF bay bridge, opened in 1936, has basically an small island
around each of the supports, so a ship hull hits the island before it
takes out the bridge.

You can see the difference on Google Earth.

On 2024-03-27 21:20, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> The main news channels show only the last ten seconds, which omits
> anything useful for deducing cause. There is talk of contaminated
> fuel, which likely would have been loaded in Baltimore.

I would not listen to any "talk" about any cause. Just leave that to the
investigators and stop speculation. It doesn't help and can do damage.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 3/27/2024 4:20 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> The main news channels show only the last ten seconds, which omits
> anything useful for deducing cause. There is talk of contaminated
> fuel, which likely would have been loaded in Baltimore.
>
> .<https://twitter.com/Abramoloy/status/1772579083219619978>
>
> Joe Gwinn

I know that cargo ships aren't built to the same standards of redundancy
as aircraft but it's remarkable to me that this failure managed to take
down every external light on the ship by the look of it. Black as pitch,
not even the mast beacon stays lit. Very helpful in an emergency.

Incidentally I noticed it looked like the bridge's center beacon
admirably kept blinking to the last, even after the rest of the bridge's
power gets cut.

I read that cargo ships of this size run diesel generators to power the
steering pumps at low speed and then do PTO from the main shaft once
they're cruising, and that the black smoke may have been an emergency
generator coming up. But the steering pumps probably aren't a priority,
in a river current that thing's a cork on backup power.

On 3/27/2024 10:53 PM, bitrex wrote:
> On 3/27/2024 4:20 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> The main news channels show only the last ten seconds, which omits
>> anything useful for deducing cause.  There is talk of contaminated
>> fuel, which likely would have been loaded in Baltimore.
>>
>> .<https://twitter.com/Abramoloy/status/1772579083219619978>
>>
>> Joe Gwinn
>
> I know that cargo ships aren't built to the same standards of redundancy
> as aircraft but it's remarkable to me that this failure managed to take
> down every external light on the ship by the look of it. Black as pitch,
> not even the mast beacon stays lit. Very helpful in an emergency.
>
> Incidentally I noticed it looked like the bridge's center beacon
> admirably kept blinking to the last, even after the rest of the bridge's
> power gets cut.
>
> I read that cargo ships of this size run diesel generators to power the
> steering pumps at low speed and then do PTO from the main shaft once
> they're cruising, and that the black smoke may have been an emergency
> generator coming up. But the steering pumps probably aren't a priority,
> in a river current that thing's a cork on backup power.

Ship likely had bow thrusters. Time from start of event to crash appears
to be a few minutes. Time from deciding emergency power was needed to it
being on-line probably too short? Would think bow thrusters would be
powered.

Out of all the hours it sailed in operation, maintenance checks were all
fine
then out of the blue not 1 but 3 power failures, and not out in the middle
of the ocean
from harms way...just close enough to a bridge and hit the weakest spot.
What a
"fluke"

> I read that cargo ships of this size run diesel generators to power the
> steering pumps at low speed and then do PTO from the main shaft once
> they're cruising, and that the black smoke may have been an emergency
> generator coming up. But the steering pumps probably aren't a priority, in
> a river current that thing's a cork on backup power.

On 29/03/2024 06:06, UFO wrote:
>
> Out of all the hours it sailed in operation, maintenance checks were all
> fine
> then out of the blue not 1 but 3 power failures, and not out in the
> middle of the ocean
> from harms way...just close enough to a bridge and hit the weakest spot.
> What a
> "fluke"

Hardly. Murphy's law can apply IRL. Dirty fuel seems quite plausible.

The bridge was *designed* to fail catastrophically if anything hit one
of its main supports which is unforgivable on a bridge that is over a
waterway leading to one of the busiest Atlantic ports in America.

Most big bridges in first world countries have buffer islands and
underwater structures to deflect and/or slow a large vessel to prevent
them from impacting any of the key support structures near a live
shipping channel. The ship may ground and be damaged and the bridge
shaken by that impact but that should be about the limit of what can
happen to a properly designed bridge in these circumstances.

>> I read that cargo ships of this size run diesel generators to power
>> the steering pumps at low speed and then do PTO from the main shaft
>> once they're cruising, and that the black smoke may have been an
>> emergency generator coming up. But the steering pumps probably aren't
>> a priority, in a river current that thing's a cork on backup power.

Also it can take a very long time to alter course with a large vessel.

The ship issued a Mayday which saved lives by closing the bridge to new
traffic before the impact but it was very sad for the road crews working
on the road deck.

--
Martin Brown

On 3/29/2024 4:18 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> The bridge was *designed* to fail catastrophically if anything hit one of its
> main supports which is unforgivable on a bridge that is over a waterway leading
> to one of the busiest Atlantic ports in America.

I would reword that as your presentation suggests this flaw was a
"design goal".

Rather, the design chosen *suffered* from the vulnerability that a single
such incident would result in a catastrophic failure.

The design also included measures that were intended to minimize the risk
of this happening.

> Most big bridges in first world countries have buffer islands and underwater
> structures to deflect and/or slow a large vessel to prevent them from impacting
> any of the key support structures near a live shipping channel. The ship may
> ground and be damaged and the bridge shaken by that impact but that should be
> about the limit of what can happen to a properly designed bridge in these
> circumstances.

The bridge had some such protections -- likely deemed adequate when it
was designed (it was opened in 1977 and thus *designed* years earlier).
But, more "adequate" (given *this* traffic) protections may have constrained
river traffic (as they consume resource IN the shipping channel) or been
deemed overkill at the time of the design.

Guesstimating how much margin to factor into each design decision is
always a crap shoot as prescience is not a science, despite the spelling! :>

Do you (legislatively) restrict the shipping traffic to ensure it never
puts the existing design at risk? At what cost to the economy, that?

> Also it can take a very long time to alter course with a large vessel.

That. Esp when it comes to commercial vessels, the "rules of the road"
(river?) implicitly acknowledge this in that the stand on vessel is almost
always the one that is least able to make quick changes to its course or
progress.

> The ship issued a Mayday which saved lives by closing the bridge to new traffic
> before the impact but it was very sad for the road crews working on the road deck.

On 2024-03-29 12:50, Don Y wrote:

> That.  Esp when it comes to commercial vessels, the "rules of the road"
> (river?) implicitly acknowledge this in that the stand on vessel is almost
> always the one that is least able to make quick changes to its course or
> progress.

Why was the operation done without tow boats, was that customary?

Where I live, we barely avoided a sea oil catastrophe about a month ago.
A sea tanker ship (Front Siena) was approaching harbour without
requesting a pilot, not contacting, and not responding to radio. And on
a collision course to the rocks.

The pilot made haste, boarded the ship unaided and in the dark, all deck
lights off. When he reached the bridge, there were 7 people there just
chatting. He was offered a coffee; instead he started roaring orders.
Reverse engines top speed, two tow boats pushing, anchor dropped.
Stopped one mile from the rocks (more or less, from memory).

Ship fined.

Spanish link with AIS route map
<https://www.naucher.com/la-penosa-historia-del-petrolero-front-siena-y-su-tripulacion-negligente/>

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 29/03/2024 12:59, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-03-29 12:50, Don Y wrote:
>
>> That.  Esp when it comes to commercial vessels, the "rules of the road"
>> (river?) implicitly acknowledge this in that the stand on vessel is
>> almost
>> always the one that is least able to make quick changes to its course or
>> progress.
>
> Why was the operation done without tow boats, was that customary?

Tow boats charge for their time. Most commercial shipping dispenses with
them as soon as it is practical to do so. In that comparatively wide
channel there was no reason why they should have been under tow by tugs.

Main engine total failure is comparatively unusual these days. Although
UK Type 45 destroyers combine engines that sound like a bag of spanners
with a nasty tendency to overheat and fail completely when used in the
Middle East. Dead in the water with no propulsion or main system power.

https://www.navylookout.com/cure-for-royal-navy-destroyers-engine-woes-in-sight/

> Where I live, we barely avoided a sea oil catastrophe about a month ago.
> A sea tanker ship (Front Siena) was approaching harbour without
> requesting a pilot, not contacting, and not responding to radio. And on
> a collision course to the rocks.

But in this instance there *were* local pilots on board the vessel and
presumably in charge of it. Only when the black box is analysed will it
become clear exactly what happened, but failure of the main engines and
its generator looks like a candidate. It is also possible that the
backup systems misfired or failed to work when needed. It is odd that
the thing went entirely dark due to power loss - most vessels have at
least some emergency lighting that is self contained and independent.

It is incredibly dark at night on the open seas (unless there is a moon)
so backup lighting is important.

> The pilot made haste, boarded the ship unaided and in the dark, all deck
> lights off. When he reached the bridge, there were 7 people there just
> chatting. He was offered a coffee; instead he started roaring orders.
> Reverse engines top speed, two tow boats pushing, anchor dropped.
> Stopped one mile from the rocks (more or less, from memory).
>
> Ship fined.
>
> Spanish link with AIS route map
> <https://www.naucher.com/la-penosa-historia-del-petrolero-front-siena-y-su-tripulacion-negligente/>

Much less exciting here in the UK most ships obey the rules.

--
Martin Brown

On 3/29/2024 5:18 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 29/03/2024 06:06, UFO wrote:
>>
>> Out of all the hours it sailed in operation, maintenance checks were
>> all fine
>> then out of the blue not 1 but 3 power failures, and not out in the
>> middle of the ocean
>> from harms way...just close enough to a bridge and hit the weakest
>> spot. What a
>> "fluke"
>
> Hardly. Murphy's law can apply IRL. Dirty fuel seems quite plausible.
>
> The bridge was *designed* to fail catastrophically if anything hit one
> of its main supports which is unforgivable on a bridge that is over a
> waterway leading to one of the busiest Atlantic ports in America.

Bridges would not similarly fail when you take out a pier for a major span?

>
> Most big bridges in first world countries have buffer islands and
> underwater structures to deflect and/or slow a large vessel to prevent
> them from impacting any of the key support structures near a live
> shipping channel. The ship may ground and be damaged and the bridge
> shaken by that impact but that should be about the limit of what can
> happen to a properly designed bridge in these circumstances.

The United States Secretary of Transportation (Buttigieg) has said he
doesn't know of any bridge that could withstand a similar hit. Hard to
imagine how you could protect from the energy in such a massive ship.

>
>>> I read that cargo ships of this size run diesel generators to power
>>> the steering pumps at low speed and then do PTO from the main shaft
>>> once they're cruising, and that the black smoke may have been an
>>> emergency generator coming up. But the steering pumps probably aren't
>>> a priority, in a river current that thing's a cork on backup power.
>
> Also it can take a very long time to alter course with a large vessel.
>
> The ship issued a Mayday which saved lives by closing the bridge to new
> traffic before the impact but it was very sad for the road crews working
> on the road deck.
>

On 3/29/2024 5:59 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-03-29 12:50, Don Y wrote:
>
>> That.  Esp when it comes to commercial vessels, the "rules of the road"
>> (river?) implicitly acknowledge this in that the stand on vessel is almost
>> always the one that is least able to make quick changes to its course or
>> progress.
>
> Why was the operation done without tow boats, was that customary?

Most likely, cost. Unless required, you'd not opt to add to your
costs unless it was to offset a "significant" financial risk to YOUR
investment.

> Where I live, we barely avoided a sea oil catastrophe about a month ago. A sea
> tanker ship (Front Siena) was approaching harbour without requesting a pilot,
> not contacting, and not responding to radio. And on a collision course to the
> rocks.
>
> The pilot made haste, boarded the ship unaided and in the dark, all deck lights
> off. When he reached the bridge, there were 7 people there just chatting. He
> was offered a coffee; instead he started roaring orders. Reverse engines top
> speed, two tow boats pushing, anchor dropped. Stopped one mile from the rocks
> (more or less, from memory).
>
> Ship fined.
>
> Spanish link with AIS route map
> <https://www.naucher.com/la-penosa-historia-del-petrolero-front-siena-y-su-tripulacion-negligente/>

In most cases, the people making the decisions "on-the-spot" are not likely
going to be held accountable (at least not to the extent of the resources
they are risking).

"They don't pay me enough for this shit..."

Wasn't there a cruise ship run up on the rocks a few years back? Because
the captain wanted to give the passengers a "good view"?

Did none of his superiors know of PAST episodes like this? Or, did they
look the other way because it provided passengers (*customers*) with
a memorable experience (to share with other POTENTIAL passengers)?

I designed an autopilot for recreational/small-commercial boats many
years ago. You told it where you wanted to go (lat-lon) and it got
you there.

But, it only had control over the rudder. So, couldn't STOP the vessel
if it noticed it was veering too far off track (e.g., if cross-track error
exceeds X nautical miles). Nor could it stop the vessel as it approached
it's destination (without manual intervention, it would gladly sail
PAST the destination, discover that the destination was now BEHIND it
and make a 180 degree turn... and repeat this process until the tanks
ran dry OR it collided with something).

I advocated for an alarm that I could sound to alert the skipper
that we were approaching the destination so he could either stop
the vessel or tell me to move on to the NEXT waypoint. Given that,
on small commercial vessels, it would be highly likely for such an
autopilot to be (ab)used to free up an extra pair of arms (the mate
at the helm) to attend to the OTHER work on the ship (e.g., preparing
lobster pots, nets, etc.), it seemed highly likely that there would
be cases where the vessel was under-supervised.

My boss dismissed this outright. Any such alarm would add cost as well
as complicate the installation (because the alarm would have to be
sited somewhere that the skipper/crew would be GUARANTEED to hear)
both of which added to effective selling price. He said, adding
an alarm would just cause the skipper to cut the wires to the
alarm (assuming it was ever installed).

Similarly, giving me control of the throttle would complicate the
product (as above) AND still leave opportunities for abuse as a
vessel adrift (not under power) is also a navigational hazzard.

<shrug> Shit happens. Hopefully not often enough to demand cause for
remedies.

On 3/29/2024 7:18 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 29/03/2024 06:06, UFO wrote:
>>
>> Out of all the hours it sailed in operation, maintenance checks were
>> all fine
>> then out of the blue not 1 but 3 power failures, and not out in the
>> middle of the ocean
>> from harms way...just close enough to a bridge and hit the weakest
>> spot. What a
>> "fluke"
>
> Hardly. Murphy's law can apply IRL. Dirty fuel seems quite plausible.

Also I think we have plenty of evidence that these hare-brained Dr. Evil
schemes are not the way major nation-states do their dirty work
anymore (if they ever did.)

If they want someone dead they send some guys to straight-up gun the
target down one day as they walk out of their front door, like Russia
has been doing in Spain recently, and like Israel has been doing
everywhere for decades.

If they want a bridge blown up they drop some of those same guys off
with some C4 and blow it up.

It all has a much greater chance of achieving the same effect reliably
and is still entirely plausibly deniable. "We didn't blow up your
bridge, don't know anything about that. And even if we did what are you
gonna do about it. Bitch"

On 2024-03-29 14:39, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 29/03/2024 12:59, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2024-03-29 12:50, Don Y wrote:
>>
>>> That.  Esp when it comes to commercial vessels, the "rules of the road"
>>> (river?) implicitly acknowledge this in that the stand on vessel is
>>> almost
>>> always the one that is least able to make quick changes to its course or
>>> progress.
>>
>> Why was the operation done without tow boats, was that customary?
>
> Tow boats charge for their time. Most commercial shipping dispenses with
> them as soon as it is practical to do so. In that comparatively wide
> channel there was no reason why they should have been under tow by tugs.

Obviously a mistake.

The decision to use a tow boat or not should not be up to them.

>
> Main engine total failure is comparatively unusual these days. Although
> UK Type 45 destroyers combine engines that sound like a bag of spanners
> with a nasty tendency to overheat and fail completely when used in the
> Middle East. Dead in the water with no propulsion or main system power.

I feel there will be more failures- It comes from subcontracting and
generally lowering costs and regulations.

>
> https://www.navylookout.com/cure-for-royal-navy-destroyers-engine-woes-in-sight/
>
>> Where I live, we barely avoided a sea oil catastrophe about a month
>> ago. A sea tanker ship (Front Siena) was approaching harbour without
>> requesting a pilot, not contacting, and not responding to radio. And
>> on a collision course to the rocks.
>
> But in this instance there *were* local pilots on board the vessel and
> presumably in charge of it. Only when the black box is analysed will it
> become clear exactly what happened, but failure of the main engines and
> its generator looks like a candidate. It is also possible that the
> backup systems misfired or failed to work when needed. It is odd that
> the thing went entirely dark due to power loss - most vessels have at
> least some emergency lighting that is self contained and independent.
>
> It is incredibly dark at night on the open seas (unless there is a moon)
> so backup lighting is important.

Yeah, quite strange that crucial lights did not have battery backup.

>
>> The pilot made haste, boarded the ship unaided and in the dark, all
>> deck lights off. When he reached the bridge, there were 7 people there
>> just chatting. He was offered a coffee; instead he started roaring
>> orders. Reverse engines top speed, two tow boats pushing, anchor
>> dropped. Stopped one mile from the rocks (more or less, from memory).
>>
>> Ship fined.
>>
>> Spanish link with AIS route map
>> <https://www.naucher.com/la-penosa-historia-del-petrolero-front-siena-y-su-tripulacion-negligente/>
>
> Much less exciting here in the UK most ships obey the rules.

This is a first, nobody seems to remember anything similar.

About half of the crew was instantly fired, including the captain and
the second in command.

The article comments on the lower quality of international crews in general.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2024-03-29 15:24, Don Y wrote:
> On 3/29/2024 5:59 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2024-03-29 12:50, Don Y wrote:
>>
>>> That.  Esp when it comes to commercial vessels, the "rules of the road"
>>> (river?) implicitly acknowledge this in that the stand on vessel is
>>> almost
>>> always the one that is least able to make quick changes to its course or
>>> progress.
>>
>> Why was the operation done without tow boats, was that customary?
>
> Most likely, cost.  Unless required, you'd not opt to add to your
> costs unless it was to offset a "significant" financial risk to YOUR
> investment.
>
>> Where I live, we barely avoided a sea oil catastrophe about a month
>> ago. A sea tanker ship (Front Siena) was approaching harbour without
>> requesting a pilot, not contacting, and not responding to radio. And
>> on a collision course to the rocks.
>>
>> The pilot made haste, boarded the ship unaided and in the dark, all
>> deck lights off. When he reached the bridge, there were 7 people there
>> just chatting. He was offered a coffee; instead he started roaring
>> orders. Reverse engines top speed, two tow boats pushing, anchor
>> dropped. Stopped one mile from the rocks (more or less, from memory).
>>
>> Ship fined.
>>
>> Spanish link with AIS route map
>> <https://www.naucher.com/la-penosa-historia-del-petrolero-front-siena-y-su-tripulacion-negligente/>
>
> In most cases, the people making the decisions "on-the-spot" are not likely
> going to be held accountable (at least not to the extent of the resources
> they are risking).
>
> "They don't pay me enough for this shit..."
>
> Wasn't there a cruise ship run up on the rocks a few years back?  Because
> the captain wanted to give the passengers a "good view"?

Yes, a passenger cruiser.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Concordia

On 13 January 2012 at 21:45, Costa Concordia struck a rock in the
Tyrrhenian Sea just off the eastern shore of Isola del Giglio. This tore
open a 50 m (160 ft) gash on the port side of her hull, which soon
flooded parts of the engine room, cutting power from the engines and
ship services. As water flooded in and the ship listed, she drifted back
towards the island and grounded near shore, then rolled onto her
starboard side, lying in an unsteady position on a rocky underwater ledge.

The evacuation of Costa Concordia took over six hours, and of the 3,229
passengers and 1,023 crew known to have been aboard, 32 died. Francesco
Schettino, the ship's captain at that time, was tried and found guilty
of manslaughter, causing a maritime accident, and abandoning his ship.
He was sentenced to sixteen years in prison in 2015.[3] The wreck was
salvaged three years after the incident and then towed to the port of
Genoa, where she was scrapped.[4]

>
> Did none of his superiors know of PAST episodes like this?  Or, did they
> look the other way because it provided passengers (*customers*) with
> a memorable experience (to share with other POTENTIAL passengers)?
>
> I designed an autopilot for recreational/small-commercial boats many
> years ago.  You told it where you wanted to go (lat-lon) and it got
> you there.
>
> But, it only had control over the rudder.  So, couldn't STOP the vessel
> if it noticed it was veering too far off track (e.g., if cross-track error
> exceeds X nautical miles).  Nor could it stop the vessel as it approached
> it's destination (without manual intervention, it would gladly sail
> PAST the destination, discover that the destination was now BEHIND it
> and make a 180 degree turn... and repeat this process until the tanks
> ran dry OR it collided with something).

:-D

>
> I advocated for an alarm that I could sound to alert the skipper
> that we were approaching the destination so he could either stop
> the vessel or tell me to move on to the NEXT waypoint.  Given that,
> on small commercial vessels, it would be highly likely for such an
> autopilot to be (ab)used to free up an extra pair of arms (the mate
> at the helm) to attend to the OTHER work on the ship (e.g., preparing
> lobster pots, nets, etc.), it seemed highly likely that there would
> be cases where the vessel was under-supervised.
>
> My boss dismissed this outright.  Any such alarm would add cost as well
> as complicate the installation (because the alarm would have to be
> sited somewhere that the skipper/crew would be GUARANTEED to hear)
> both of which added to effective selling price.  He said, adding
> an alarm would just cause the skipper to cut the wires to the
> alarm (assuming it was ever installed).

Sigh.

Yeah, the Front Siena could be under such an autopilot system and the
crew confidently waiting for the buzzer to warn to change to manual mode.

>
> Similarly, giving me control of the throttle would complicate the
> product (as above) AND still leave opportunities for abuse as a
> vessel adrift (not under power) is also a navigational hazzard.
>
> <shrug>  Shit happens.  Hopefully not often enough to demand cause for
> remedies.

I think other method is for the autopilot to switch off and sound a
buzzer on arrival.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 3/30/2024 6:45 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> Wasn't there a cruise ship run up on the rocks a few years back?  Because
>> the captain wanted to give the passengers a "good view"?
>
> Yes, a passenger cruiser.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Concordia
>
> On 13 January 2012 at 21:45, Costa Concordia struck a rock in the Tyrrhenian
> Sea just off the eastern shore of Isola del Giglio. This tore open a 50 m (160
> ft) gash on the port side of her hull, which soon flooded parts of the engine
> room, cutting power from the engines and ship services. As water flooded in and
> the ship listed, she drifted back towards the island and grounded near shore,
> then rolled onto her starboard side, lying in an unsteady position on a rocky
> underwater ledge.
>
> The evacuation of Costa Concordia took over six hours, and of the 3,229
> passengers and 1,023 crew known to have been aboard, 32 died. Francesco
> Schettino, the ship's captain at that time, was tried and found guilty of
> manslaughter, causing a maritime accident, and abandoning his ship. He was
> sentenced to sixteen years in prison in 2015.[3] The wreck was salvaged three
> years after the incident and then towed to the port of Genoa, where she was
> scrapped.[4]

But, IIRC, this wasn't the first time he had done so. Therefore, his employers
COULD have noticed that his actual track would put the vessel in danger and
reprimand him of it.

>> I advocated for an alarm that I could sound to alert the skipper
>> that we were approaching the destination so he could either stop
>> the vessel or tell me to move on to the NEXT waypoint.  Given that,
>> on small commercial vessels, it would be highly likely for such an
>> autopilot to be (ab)used to free up an extra pair of arms (the mate
>> at the helm) to attend to the OTHER work on the ship (e.g., preparing
>> lobster pots, nets, etc.), it seemed highly likely that there would
>> be cases where the vessel was under-supervised.
>>
>> My boss dismissed this outright.  Any such alarm would add cost as well
>> as complicate the installation (because the alarm would have to be
>> sited somewhere that the skipper/crew would be GUARANTEED to hear)
>> both of which added to effective selling price.  He said, adding
>> an alarm would just cause the skipper to cut the wires to the
>> alarm (assuming it was ever installed).
>
> Sigh.
>
> Yeah, the Front Siena could be under such an autopilot system and the crew
> confidently waiting for the buzzer to warn to change to manual mode.

Like self-driving cars. This doesn't free you from the RESPONSIBILITY
for the safe operation of the vehicle.

When SWMBO bought her most recent car, backup cameras and blind spot
warning indicators were pretty much standard across the market.
One salesperson bragged that she never bothered to look over her
shoulder when backing up or checking mirrors before changing lanes
(as if the technology was infallible).

>> Similarly, giving me control of the throttle would complicate the
>> product (as above) AND still leave opportunities for abuse as a
>> vessel adrift (not under power) is also a navigational hazzard.
>>
>> <shrug>  Shit happens.  Hopefully not often enough to demand cause for
>> remedies.
>
> I think other method is for the autopilot to switch off and sound a buzzer on
> arrival.

Then the vessel is "under power" and "rudderless".

ANY autopilot has to be supervised. So, how do you ensure supervision?
(Or, do you just let lawsuits deal with it all, after the fact?)

Cheaper is always better. The crew
was 100% Pakastani / Indian, they are the
cheapest solution. Play stupid games,
eventually win stupid prizes.

Maybe if the country relied less on cheap disposable
products and labor from 3rd world cesspool countries
this has no chance of happening.

Still, people love dialing up a URL in China or Alibabba
and get a dopamine rush buying cheap stuff so those
countries send more freeloaders here to burden our infrastructure
because we ask for it.

If they cant run a bridge in their own country they sure
as hell dont know what it is somewhere else and should not be
anywhere near one.

Everything has to be "politically correct" because god forbid we offend
some low IQ alien and deny them a job and "hurt their feelings"

So we watch people fall to their deaths from the WTC on 911 and now
an entire bridge collapse and more people fall to their death.

That could be any one of us at any time thinking we have a safe system
with not only incompetent people behind the wheel, but also way up top
at the "financial services" sector, where Wall St MUST show a profit at all
costs
even at the expense of public safety.

On 2024-03-30 15:37, Don Y wrote:
> On 3/30/2024 6:45 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> Wasn't there a cruise ship run up on the rocks a few years back?
>>> Because
>>> the captain wanted to give the passengers a "good view"?
>>
>> Yes, a passenger cruiser.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Concordia
>>
>> On 13 January 2012 at 21:45, Costa Concordia struck a rock in the
>> Tyrrhenian Sea just off the eastern shore of Isola del Giglio. This
>> tore open a 50 m (160 ft) gash on the port side of her hull, which
>> soon flooded parts of the engine room, cutting power from the engines
>> and ship services. As water flooded in and the ship listed, she
>> drifted back towards the island and grounded near shore, then rolled
>> onto her starboard side, lying in an unsteady position on a rocky
>> underwater ledge.
>>
>> The evacuation of Costa Concordia took over six hours, and of the
>> 3,229 passengers and 1,023 crew known to have been aboard, 32 died.
>> Francesco Schettino, the ship's captain at that time, was tried and
>> found guilty of manslaughter, causing a maritime accident, and
>> abandoning his ship. He was sentenced to sixteen years in prison in
>> 2015.[3] The wreck was salvaged three years after the incident and
>> then towed to the port of Genoa, where she was scrapped.[4]
>
> But, IIRC, this wasn't the first time he had done so.  Therefore, his
> employers
> COULD have noticed that his actual track would put the vessel in danger and
> reprimand him of it.

True.

>
>>> I advocated for an alarm that I could sound to alert the skipper
>>> that we were approaching the destination so he could either stop
>>> the vessel or tell me to move on to the NEXT waypoint.  Given that,
>>> on small commercial vessels, it would be highly likely for such an
>>> autopilot to be (ab)used to free up an extra pair of arms (the mate
>>> at the helm) to attend to the OTHER work on the ship (e.g., preparing
>>> lobster pots, nets, etc.), it seemed highly likely that there would
>>> be cases where the vessel was under-supervised.
>>>
>>> My boss dismissed this outright.  Any such alarm would add cost as well
>>> as complicate the installation (because the alarm would have to be
>>> sited somewhere that the skipper/crew would be GUARANTEED to hear)
>>> both of which added to effective selling price.  He said, adding
>>> an alarm would just cause the skipper to cut the wires to the
>>> alarm (assuming it was ever installed).
>>
>> Sigh.
>>
>> Yeah, the Front Siena could be under such an autopilot system and the
>> crew confidently waiting for the buzzer to warn to change to manual mode.
>
> Like self-driving cars.  This doesn't free you from the RESPONSIBILITY
> for the safe operation of the vehicle.
>
> When SWMBO bought her most recent car, backup cameras and blind spot
> warning indicators were pretty much standard across the market.
> One salesperson bragged that she never bothered to look over her
> shoulder when backing up or checking mirrors before changing lanes
> (as if the technology was infallible).

I use the mirrors for backing up, but actually the rear camera has a
better view, so I use it most of the time.

I have no automatics for changing lanes.

>
>>> Similarly, giving me control of the throttle would complicate the
>>> product (as above) AND still leave opportunities for abuse as a
>>> vessel adrift (not under power) is also a navigational hazzard.
>>>
>>> <shrug>  Shit happens.  Hopefully not often enough to demand cause for
>>> remedies.
>>
>> I think other method is for the autopilot to switch off and sound a
>> buzzer on arrival.
>
> Then the vessel is "under power" and "rudderless".
>
> ANY autopilot has to be supervised.  So, how do you ensure supervision?
> (Or, do you just let lawsuits deal with it all, after the fact?)

It is what airplanes do. On certain conditions, the autopilot disengages
and sounds some type of alarm in the cockpit.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2024-03-29 16:21, bud-- wrote:
> On 3/29/2024 5:18 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 29/03/2024 06:06, UFO wrote:
>>>
>>> Out of all the hours it sailed in operation, maintenance checks were
>>> all fine
>>> then out of the blue not 1 but 3 power failures, and not out in the
>>> middle of the ocean
>>> from harms way...just close enough to a bridge and hit the weakest
>>> spot. What a
>>> "fluke"
>>
>> Hardly. Murphy's law can apply IRL. Dirty fuel seems quite plausible.
>>
>> The bridge was *designed* to fail catastrophically if anything hit one
>> of its main supports which is unforgivable on a bridge that is over a
>> waterway leading to one of the busiest Atlantic ports in America.
>
> Bridges would not similarly fail when you take out a pier for a major span?

On some bridges, only the spans directly supported by that pier fall,
not all.

>
>>
>> Most big bridges in first world countries have buffer islands and
>> underwater structures to deflect and/or slow a large vessel to prevent
>> them from impacting any of the key support structures near a live
>> shipping channel. The ship may ground and be damaged and the bridge
>> shaken by that impact but that should be about the limit of what can
>> happen to a properly designed bridge in these circumstances.
>
> The United States Secretary of Transportation (Buttigieg) has said he
> doesn't know of any bridge that could withstand a similar hit. Hard to
> imagine how you could protect from the energy in such a massive ship.

With a massive island, but that reduces the passage for ships, which
then have more chances to crashing into it, and impairs traffic.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 3/30/2024 11:03 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

[Costa Concordia]

>> But, IIRC, this wasn't the first time he had done so.  Therefore, his employers
>> COULD have noticed that his actual track would put the vessel in danger and
>> reprimand him of it.
>
> True.

So, *he* takes the fall for a practice that a responsible business should
have stopped long before.

>>> Yeah, the Front Siena could be under such an autopilot system and the crew
>>> confidently waiting for the buzzer to warn to change to manual mode.
>>
>> Like self-driving cars.  This doesn't free you from the RESPONSIBILITY
>> for the safe operation of the vehicle.
>>
>> When SWMBO bought her most recent car, backup cameras and blind spot
>> warning indicators were pretty much standard across the market.
>> One salesperson bragged that she never bothered to look over her
>> shoulder when backing up or checking mirrors before changing lanes
>> (as if the technology was infallible).
>
> I use the mirrors for backing up, but actually the rear camera has a better
> view, so I use it most of the time.

My gaze moves from rear view to side mirrors to over-the-shoulder to backup
camera. It's amazing how easily people and things (less so than vehicles)
can appear out of nowhere.

Distressing to see "old folks" who just put it in reverse and HOPE
(it appears many elderly have problems rotating their heads that far)

> I have no automatics for changing lanes.

I wouldn't *rely* on them but consider them another "input" to be considered.
They tend to be more of an annoyance, though. E.g., if navigating a turn
in a situation with multiple turn lanes, they will alarm (normally, they
only "indicate" visually but if you have THAT turn signal engaged, they
are more insistent).

Cars make too many frigging noises, nowadays!

>>> I think other method is for the autopilot to switch off and sound a buzzer
>>> on arrival.
>>
>> Then the vessel is "under power" and "rudderless".
>>
>> ANY autopilot has to be supervised.  So, how do you ensure supervision?
>> (Or, do you just let lawsuits deal with it all, after the fact?)
>
> It is what airplanes do. On certain conditions, the autopilot disengages and
> sounds some type of alarm in the cockpit.

But, pilots sit *in* the cockpit -- and, there are regulations governing
their actions.

Skipper of a fishing vessel is more likely to play fast and loose with
"rules" and "best practices" -- because he doesn't have the luxury of
having extra staff or other resources. Look forward... see anything?
OK, assume nothing will pop up suddenly and turn your attention to some
other task (and lose track of how much time has elapsed since the last
time you checked your course).

On 3/30/2024 12:05 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2024-03-29 16:21, bud-- wrote:
>> On 3/29/2024 5:18 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 29/03/2024 06:06, UFO wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Out of all the hours it sailed in operation, maintenance checks were
>>>> all fine
>>>> then out of the blue not 1 but 3 power failures, and not out in the
>>>> middle of the ocean
>>>> from harms way...just close enough to a bridge and hit the weakest
>>>> spot. What a
>>>> "fluke"
>>>
>>> Hardly. Murphy's law can apply IRL. Dirty fuel seems quite plausible.
>>>
>>> The bridge was *designed* to fail catastrophically if anything hit
>>> one of its main supports which is unforgivable on a bridge that is
>>> over a waterway leading to one of the busiest Atlantic ports in America.
>>
>> Bridges would not similarly fail when you take out a pier for a major
>> span?
>
> On some bridges, only the spans directly supported by that pier fall,
> not all.
>

So main span falls and on the other side of the pier that did not fail
the approach stays intact? Falling main span does not affect pier?

>>
>>>
>>> Most big bridges in first world countries have buffer islands and
>>> underwater structures to deflect and/or slow a large vessel to
>>> prevent them from impacting any of the key support structures near a
>>> live shipping channel. The ship may ground and be damaged and the
>>> bridge shaken by that impact but that should be about the limit of
>>> what can happen to a properly designed bridge in these circumstances.
>>
>> The United States Secretary of Transportation (Buttigieg) has said he
>> doesn't know of any bridge that could withstand a similar hit. Hard to
>> imagine how you could protect from the energy in such a massive ship.
>
> With a massive island, but that reduces the passage for ships, which
> then have more chances to crashing into it, and impairs traffic.
>

So island is anchored and constructed so a hit from a massive container
ship won't destroy it or tip it (how far down does it go)?. And has to
be bigger than how far into the island the ship penetrates plus how far
the bow sticks out plus how far the bow dents in? Plus the pier can
survive the shock (like earthquake proof)? Where does the energy go?

Requiring tugs to accompany large ships may be more practical. One may
assume that wasn't required here. Bow thrusters probably make
maneuvering ships in a harbor without a tug practical.

On 2024-03-30 23:18, Don Y wrote:
> On 3/30/2024 11:03 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> [Costa Concordia]
>
>>> But, IIRC, this wasn't the first time he had done so.  Therefore, his
>>> employers
>>> COULD have noticed that his actual track would put the vessel in
>>> danger and
>>> reprimand him of it.
>>
>> True.
>
> So, *he* takes the fall for a practice that a responsible business should
> have stopped long before.

Yes.

A few years ago there was a high speed train accident in Spain. The
driver did not slow down when nearing certain curve, he was distracted
maybe talking with the conductor.

79 deaths.

He got the full and sole blame.

Not even the surviving victims and families of the dead accept this.

The truth is that that section of the track did not have the security
systems that other tracks or sections of this same track have. These
systems would have warned the driver, sounded and alarm, and ultimately
stopped the train.

But there was hurry to build and put the tracks into service.

It is bollocks to trust the security of hundreds of passengers on a
train doing over 200 Km/h to a single person. Trust that he will be
fully attentive and not commit errors during every second of a few hours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailment

>
>>>> Yeah, the Front Siena could be under such an autopilot system and
>>>> the crew confidently waiting for the buzzer to warn to change to
>>>> manual mode.
>>>
>>> Like self-driving cars.  This doesn't free you from the RESPONSIBILITY
>>> for the safe operation of the vehicle.
>>>
>>> When SWMBO bought her most recent car, backup cameras and blind spot
>>> warning indicators were pretty much standard across the market.
>>> One salesperson bragged that she never bothered to look over her
>>> shoulder when backing up or checking mirrors before changing lanes
>>> (as if the technology was infallible).
>>
>> I use the mirrors for backing up, but actually the rear camera has a
>> better view, so I use it most of the time.
>
> My gaze moves from rear view to side mirrors to over-the-shoulder to backup
> camera.  It's amazing how easily people and things (less so than vehicles)
> can appear out of nowhere.

The camera sees way more. Often the camera sees a person that is not in
the mirror, it is on the other mirror, or even nowhere.

If the camera doesn't start, I wait.

It is not an automatic warning system, I still have to be looking
attentively.

>
> Distressing to see "old folks" who just put it in reverse and HOPE
> (it appears many elderly have problems rotating their heads that far)

It is possible.

>
>> I have no automatics for changing lanes.
>
> I wouldn't *rely* on them but consider them another "input" to be
> considered.
> They tend to be more of an annoyance, though.  E.g., if navigating a turn
> in a situation with multiple turn lanes, they will alarm (normally, they
> only "indicate" visually but if you have THAT turn signal engaged, they
> are more insistent).
>
> Cars make too many frigging noises, nowadays!

Yep.

>
>>>> I think other method is for the autopilot to switch off and sound a
>>>> buzzer on arrival.
>>>
>>> Then the vessel is "under power" and "rudderless".
>>>
>>> ANY autopilot has to be supervised.  So, how do you ensure supervision?
>>> (Or, do you just let lawsuits deal with it all, after the fact?)
>>
>> It is what airplanes do. On certain conditions, the autopilot
>> disengages and sounds some type of alarm in the cockpit.
>
> But, pilots sit *in* the cockpit -- and, there are regulations governing
> their actions.

Yep.

>
> Skipper of a fishing vessel is more likely to play fast and loose with
> "rules" and "best practices" -- because he doesn't have the luxury of
> having extra staff or other resources.  Look forward... see anything?
> OK, assume nothing will pop up suddenly and turn your attention to some
> other task (and lose track of how much time has elapsed since the last
> time you checked your course).

Right.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2024-03-31 01:47, bud-- wrote:
> On 3/30/2024 12:05 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2024-03-29 16:21, bud-- wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2024 5:18 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>> On 29/03/2024 06:06, UFO wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Out of all the hours it sailed in operation, maintenance checks
>>>>> were all fine
>>>>> then out of the blue not 1 but 3 power failures, and not out in the
>>>>> middle of the ocean
>>>>> from harms way...just close enough to a bridge and hit the weakest
>>>>> spot. What a
>>>>> "fluke"
>>>>
>>>> Hardly. Murphy's law can apply IRL. Dirty fuel seems quite plausible.
>>>>
>>>> The bridge was *designed* to fail catastrophically if anything hit
>>>> one of its main supports which is unforgivable on a bridge that is
>>>> over a waterway leading to one of the busiest Atlantic ports in
>>>> America.
>>>
>>> Bridges would not similarly fail when you take out a pier for a major
>>> span?
>>
>> On some bridges, only the spans directly supported by that pier fall,
>> not all.
>>
>
> So main span falls and on the other side of the pier that did not fail
> the approach stays intact? Falling main span does not affect pier?

Depends on the design.

I can not tell you what they do, only that I read or heard comments from
"experts" saying so.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Most big bridges in first world countries have buffer islands and
>>>> underwater structures to deflect and/or slow a large vessel to
>>>> prevent them from impacting any of the key support structures near a
>>>> live shipping channel. The ship may ground and be damaged and the
>>>> bridge shaken by that impact but that should be about the limit of
>>>> what can happen to a properly designed bridge in these circumstances.
>>>
>>> The United States Secretary of Transportation (Buttigieg) has said he
>>> doesn't know of any bridge that could withstand a similar hit. Hard
>>> to imagine how you could protect from the energy in such a massive ship.
>>
>> With a massive island, but that reduces the passage for ships, which
>> then have more chances to crashing into it, and impairs traffic.
>>
>
> So island is anchored and constructed so a hit from a massive container
> ship won't destroy it or tip it (how far down does it go)?. And has to
> be bigger than how far into the island the ship penetrates plus how far
> the bow sticks out plus how far the bow dents in? Plus the pier can
> survive the shock (like earthquake proof)? Where does the energy go?

Heat, and metal crushing :-)

Yeah, the island has to be massive, which is a problem for traffic.

>
> Requiring tugs to accompany large ships may be more practical. One may
> assume that wasn't required here. Bow thrusters probably make
> maneuvering ships in a harbor without a tug practical.

Yep.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 3/31/2024 1:52 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> So, *he* takes the fall for a practice that a responsible business should
>> have stopped long before.
>
> Yes.
>
> A few years ago there was a high speed train accident in Spain. The driver did
> not slow down when nearing certain curve, he was distracted maybe talking with
> the conductor.

I vaguely remember an incident in Korea/Japan?

> 79 deaths.
>
> He got the full and sole blame.
>
> Not even the surviving victims and families of the dead accept this.

But, to do otherwise, would mean OTHERS are culpable. :>

> The truth is that that section of the track did not have the security systems
> that other tracks or sections of this same track have. These systems would have
> warned the driver, sounded and alarm, and ultimately stopped the train.
>
> But there was hurry to build and put the tracks into service.

OTOH, how would the "Ridership" have reacted to a delay in making that
route available?

People are always making judgement calls that SHOULD be weighted by
the relative costs and likelihoods of different outcomes. But, instead,
they only see one side and hope the other never occurs.

We had folks break into the cockpits of airliners and deliberately
crash them. Who'd have thought that a likely event? What savings
by not fortifying the doors, originally?

We have electrical substations of varying capacity scattered
around most towns in this country. Often, "protected" by a chain
link fence. Would a *bank* store its assets behind a chain link
fence?

Here, we rely on ground water pumped from dozens of wells around
town. Also protected by a chain link fence. See the pattern?

> It is bollocks to trust the security of hundreds of passengers on a train doing
> over 200 Km/h to a single person. Trust that he will be fully attentive and not
> commit errors during every second of a few hours.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailment

...all the while being under pressure to keep the train "on time"!

>>>>> Yeah, the Front Siena could be under such an autopilot system and the crew
>>>>> confidently waiting for the buzzer to warn to change to manual mode.
>>>>
>>>> Like self-driving cars.  This doesn't free you from the RESPONSIBILITY
>>>> for the safe operation of the vehicle.
>>>>
>>>> When SWMBO bought her most recent car, backup cameras and blind spot
>>>> warning indicators were pretty much standard across the market.
>>>> One salesperson bragged that she never bothered to look over her
>>>> shoulder when backing up or checking mirrors before changing lanes
>>>> (as if the technology was infallible).
>>>
>>> I use the mirrors for backing up, but actually the rear camera has a better
>>> view, so I use it most of the time.
>>
>> My gaze moves from rear view to side mirrors to over-the-shoulder to backup
>> camera.  It's amazing how easily people and things (less so than vehicles)
>> can appear out of nowhere.
>
> The camera sees way more. Often the camera sees a person that is not in the
> mirror, it is on the other mirror, or even nowhere.

It won't see the driver of the car parked next to you walking alongside your
vehicle and then across the back -- until he is directly behind the vehicle
(which may be after you've let up on the brake)

> If the camera doesn't start, I wait.
>
> It is not an automatic warning system, I still have to be looking attentively.

That was the point. You can't just treat these features (e.g., autopilot)
as if they released you from any role in the vehicle's operation.

>> Distressing to see "old folks" who just put it in reverse and HOPE
>> (it appears many elderly have problems rotating their heads that far)
>
> It is possible.

I suspect it is the case. As I get older, I am more observant of still older
folks' physical and mental "conditions". The "don't look backwards while in
reverse" syndrome seems to be very real.

>>> I have no automatics for changing lanes.
>>
>> I wouldn't *rely* on them but consider them another "input" to be considered.
>> They tend to be more of an annoyance, though.  E.g., if navigating a turn
>> in a situation with multiple turn lanes, they will alarm (normally, they
>> only "indicate" visually but if you have THAT turn signal engaged, they
>> are more insistent).
>>
>> Cars make too many frigging noises, nowadays!
>
> Yep.

And, as the noise doesn't really convey any information, they are more
distracting than helpful. At times when your full attention should be
elsewhere.

>> Skipper of a fishing vessel is more likely to play fast and loose with
>> "rules" and "best practices" -- because he doesn't have the luxury of
>> having extra staff or other resources.  Look forward... see anything?
>> OK, assume nothing will pop up suddenly and turn your attention to some
>> other task (and lose track of how much time has elapsed since the last
>> time you checked your course).
>
> Right.

So, what responsibility do I, as a designer, have in creating products
for those markets? What responsibility my employer?

Should a lawyer be able to argue that we *could* have put a warning
device in the product ("for as little as $X") and chose not to...
favoring profit over safety (in his pitch to a jury)?

Is it justifiable to wash your hands of anything that can go wrong with
the use of your product and put the onus entirely on the user/customer?
Is a list of disclaimers legally and morally sufficient?

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 20:27:34 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

[snip]
>>> Distressing to see "old folks" who just put it in reverse and HOPE
>>> (it appears many elderly have problems rotating their heads that far)
>>
>> It is possible.
>
>I suspect it is the case. As I get older, I am more observant of still older
>folks' physical and mental "conditions". The "don't look backwards while in
>reverse" syndrome seems to be very real.

It is. I'm in my 70s, and no longer can look over my shoulders, so I
try to maneuver the car enough to see for instance oncoming traffic
when entering a highway. My wife also has this problem, but a bit
less so.

Nor is it possible to see backwards out of modern cars, which have
become far too aerodynamic, with tiny misplaced rear windows, so we
depend on those backup cameras. Which can be rendered useless by
slush or droplets of water on the lens.

Joe Gwinn