Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Baltimore Shipwreck....insurance......deliberate?

Joined
Jul 9, 2022
Messages
2,584
Seems to me, from the video, that the ship "steamed ahead" and changed course, direct to the bridge. Many videos show engine exhaust plumes at the moment of direction change. Seems to be a bit off.


Also, Joe Biden, has promised that taxpayers pay the bill. The issue I have with this is: if the incident was an accident, and not deliberate, than the ships insurance company would be on the hook, 100%. So why the quick federal response to "pay for it"?

If it was an act of "terrorism" it is likely that insurance would not pay for it.

The captain of the boat was Ukrainian.

Is there any insurance people on this forum who could explain in better detail?
 

PawPower1981

I love those 👩🏻‍🦰
Founder
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
1,047
The Captain may have been Ukrainian, but the guy driving the ship in that areas would have been one of the local harbor pilots and knows that bay like the back of his hand. You could see the boat lose power twice, I don’t think it was intentional. However, taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook
 

TopHook

Legendary
Founder
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
12,401
The Captain may have been Ukrainian, but the guy driving the ship in that areas would have been one of the local harbor pilots and knows that bay like the back of his hand. You could see the boat lose power twice, I don’t think it was intentional. However, taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook
Losing power wouldn't have affected steering.
 

Golbez

Poster
Joined
Mar 12, 2024
Messages
263
That is fact, not just an opinion.



The AT&T outage is also very compelling timing when there was "nothing to see here folks" when the Feds immediately jumped all over that one too.
 
Joined
Jul 9, 2022
Messages
2,584
So the story I got on why the ship seemed to run into the bridge, is because they went to full reverse propeller. Due to rotation, the ship went starboard, and slowed but still hit the mofo.

Sounds reasonable.
 

Joe King

Elite
Joined
Jan 2, 2023
Messages
745
videos show engine exhaust plumes at the moment of direction change.

So the story I got on why the ship seemed to run into the bridge, is because they went to full reverse propeller. Due to rotation, the ship went starboard, and slowed but still hit the mofo.

Sounds reasonable.
That's called the paddle wheel effect. The rotation of the prop puts some amount of torque on the vessel that must be accounted for. In forward motion, it spins clockwise. That adds a bit of sideways pull on the stern to the starboard side, and in reverse to the port side. If the stern goes a bit left, that points the bow a bit to the right.

The visible exhaust plume you mentioned was likely caused by them going full astern.
Going full astern caused the paddle wheel effect, but in the opposite direction. Add in 9 knots of forward momentum, and the bow swings right toward the bridge pier.

What they shoulda done (imho) was give it a quick bump of forward thrust (that puts more water across the rudder, causing a quicker response) with a hard left rudder to kick the bow away from the bridge pier. It seems as though everything they did resulted in the ship turning towards the bridge. But it's easy to say stuff like that only after you've time to really look at the situation. In the two or three minutes they had, ya do what seems best and then hope it all works out that way.
 
Joined
Jul 9, 2022
Messages
2,584
That's called the paddle wheel effect. The rotation of the prop puts some amount of torque on the vessel that must be accounted for. In forward motion, it spins clockwise. That adds a bit of sideways pull on the stern to the starboard side, and in reverse to the port side. If the stern goes a bit left, that points the bow a bit to the right.

The visible exhaust plume you mentioned was likely caused by them going full astern.
Going full astern caused the paddle wheel effect, but in the opposite direction. Add in 9 knots of forward momentum, and the bow swings right toward the bridge pier.

What they shoulda done (imho) was give it a quick bump of forward thrust (that puts more water across the rudder, causing a quicker response) with a hard left rudder to kick the bow away from the bridge pier. It seems as though everything they did resulted in the ship turning towards the bridge. But it's easy to say stuff like that only after you've time to really look at the situation. In the two or three minutes they had, ya do what seems best and then hope it all works out that way.
I think you are on point for sure.


Now for that comment of Biden, that WE THE TAXPAYERS are going to pay for the fucking bridge.......and not the shipping company or their insurance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WTF
 
Top Bottom