Key Bridge in Baltimore collapses!

Skybolt

Skybolt

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2014
6,469
Kent Narrows, MD
Boat Info
Reel Nauti
460 EC
Engines
Detroit 6v92TA
(Low profile's)
Alison Gears
Westerbeke
12.5kw Genset
~5hrs ago a ship hit the Key Bridge and it collapses:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1772518180717572110


Seems I posted this after this was already posted:

clubsearay.com

Baltimore bridge collapse

Not much info on it locally in Michigan. I guess a ship hit it and video show total collapse. They didn't indicate actual location.
clubsearay.com clubsearay.com

For some reason the delete has been removed from the edit options ...
 
crazy that it has basically blocked the shipping traffic. Curious to see how long this will take to clear a channel.
 
The Dark Side said:
crazy that it has basically blocked the shipping traffic. Curious to see how long this will take to clear a channel.
Click to expand...
They got a small Channel cleared out yesterday. I think they said it had 15-18 ft draft capability. A tug pushed a fuel barge through it. I'm pleasantly surprised that they're moving that quickly. They said they were working on a second alternate Channel as well.
 
If this was WWII I assume they would blow up the stuff in the way and drag it off to the side. But this would kill fish and the bag would stress out residents in the area. We used to remove large oil storage tanks and structures. It is very scary work for those who do not know what they are doing. I think it would be extremely dangerous to cut steel structure underwater when there is no longer a solid structure.
 
When the oil well fires in Kuwait were put out some well tops were cut off using steel cables in a continuous loop. I have no idea if it would work under water but is a simple process to find out. If it worked it could save a few divers lives.
 

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
1712444562168.png
 
V
northern said:
This may be of interest
Chief Makoi
Click to expand...
Very interesting on the fuel being an issue. The interesting thing as he points out is the boat went dark then lights came on then dark again. As we know an engine going down on bad fuel will not instantly restart - the bad fuel needs to be purged which takes time and I'm sure it is a manual configuration the crew needs to do which takes more time. When large generators are connected in parallel (called "paralleling") They have to be phase matched. There are electronic devices that change engine RPM to get the phases in sync then a large contactor drops in connecting them in parallel, otherwise, there would be an electrical short. If one generator should have an issue when paralleled it will drag the other down and the switch gear will trip it out of the parallel configuration. He said, which is normal in critical electrical, that each generator can support the ship and the two together is a necessary redundancy. When we develop missle launch systems we have a full capability generator, large UPS, and utility power. During critical launch timelines we are primarily on the generator. Should it trip off line the UPS temporarly picks up the load and the systems are switched to the utility to enable normal safing all of the systems; we do not continue operations without the redundancy. It's that switching that is the single point failure - if it doesn't work first time every time then we are in a critical safing situation relying on the UPS and it's time limitations. We trained for all of these situations.
Anyhow it appears main engine failure/shutdown was due to the loss of the Aux generators, both of them.
The emergency generator should have been started and brought on line to power critical systems including rudder control. The lights coming on then back off may indicate a loss of that emergency generator.
The black smoke as he notes could indicate a fuel issue but also the generators coming on line but a switching issue running the load up beyond normal.
My amature armchair quarterback thinking is there was a critical switching issue.
 
ttmott said:
V

Very interesting on the fuel being an issue. The interesting thing as he points out is the boat went dark then lights came on then dark again. As we know an engine going down on bad fuel will not instantly restart - the bad fuel needs to be purged which takes time. When large generators are connected in parallel (called "paralleling") They have to be phase matched. There are electronic devices that change engine RPM to get the phases in sync then a large contactor drops in connecting them in parallel, otherwise, there would be an electrical short. If one generator should have an issue when paralleled it will drag the other down and the switch gear will trip it out of the parallel configuration. He said, which is normal in critical electrical, that each generator can support the ship and the two together is a necessary redundancy. When we develop missle launch systems we have a full capability generator, large UPS, and utility power. During critical launch timelines we are primarily on the generator. Should it trip off line the UPS temporarly picks up the load and the systems are switched to the utility to enable normal safing all of the systems; we do not continue operations without the redundancy. It's that switching that is the single point failure - if it doesn't work first time every time then we are in a critical safing situation relying on the UPS and it's time limitations. We trained for all of these situations.
Anyhow it appears main engine failure/shutdown was due to the loss of the Aux generators.
The emergency generator should have been started and brought on line to power critical systems including rudder control. The lights coming on then back off may indicate a loss of that emergency generator.
The black smoke as he notes could indicate a fuel issue but also the generators coming on line but a switching issue running the load up beyond normal.
My amature armchair quarterback thinking is there was a critical switching issue.
Click to expand...
Or someone made a mistake at a single point of failure.

One interesting note is that when the power first failed.....the navigation lights went off. I was taught in Captain's school (25 years ago) run by a cargo ship instructor that those lights had battery backup so that they could switch on red over red if they lost control. Well all those lights went out when the Main Electrical generator failed. When the power came back the navigation lights came on......and when the power failed again......they stayed on.

I would speculate that the Emergency generator started within about 45 seconds of the Main generator failing. Then they got the Main Electrical generator restarted for a short period of time and it failed again. However.....the Emergency generator was still running.

In either case having steering control without propulsion is almost useless.

It just sounds like human error.
 
PlayDate said:
Or someone made a mistake at a single point of failure.

One interesting note is that when the power first failed.....the navigation lights went off. I was taught in Captain's school (25 years ago) run by a cargo ship instructor that those lights had battery backup so that they could switch on red over red if they lost control. Well all those lights went out when the Main Electrical generator failed. When the power came back the navigation lights came on......and when the power failed again......they stayed on.

I would speculate that the Emergency generator started within about 45 seconds of the Main generator failing. Then they got the Main Electrical generator restarted for a short period of time and it failed again. However.....the Emergency generator was still running.

In either case having steering control without propulsion is almost useless.

It just sounds like human error.
Click to expand...
It all comes down to human error regardless - design shortfall, maintenance issue, fuel issue, execution of procedure, fault in procedure, component failure, etc.
The sad part of this is someone will take the fall and be ruined for life rather than being more knowledgable with better procedures and designs. That is unless malfesiance (defered maintenance or intentional act) was in play. It just seems the way our society works these days.

I'll add that we (in the aerospace business) had problem reports (PR's and a plethra of other acronyms) which the originator had to catergorize ( human error, hardware failure, or unexplained anomoly). A problem report categorized as an unexplained anomoly (UA) was always changed to a known condition once we dug into the forensics. We never ever closed an PR as a UA. Even a hardware failure ended up being a corrective action that landed as human error; right down the raw material supplier in some cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,186
Messages
1,428,156
Members
61,095
Latest member
380Thumper
Back
Top