1:30 am. early am Baltimore MD news: huge Sri Lankan flagged cargo vessel, rented by Maersk. vessel crashed into a bridge support, collapsing the bridge at mid span. 2 pilots on board. bridge now down in the channel. all ship crew safe. but bridge nighttime workers and at least 7 cars on the bridge were thrown into the water. 48 degree water temp. 'a rescue operation is underway'. shocking and so sad.
Baltimore's key bridge down , hit by ship in early morning . . .
- Thread starter MitchM
- Start date
Really remarkable and big news in the Chesapeake area. This was the Francis Scott Key I695 bridge over the Patapsco River around the entrance to Baltimore Harbor. There's a live stream of that part of the Patapsco at
. If you scroll back to 1:28 AM you can see the incident. The ship's lights seem to go out a couple times in the minutes before the collision.
Two people have been recovered from the water - one uninjured and one with "very serious" injuries. Reports estimate about 7 people unaccounted for. Thoughts and prayers for them. Luckily this happened at night and the bridge did not have many vehicles at the time. The wreckage of the bridge is laying across the ship and across the channel, blocking access to the Port of Baltimore. Of course there will be a Coast Guard investigation to determine the facts of how this could've happened.
Two people have been recovered from the water - one uninjured and one with "very serious" injuries. Reports estimate about 7 people unaccounted for. Thoughts and prayers for them. Luckily this happened at night and the bridge did not have many vehicles at the time. The wreckage of the bridge is laying across the ship and across the channel, blocking access to the Port of Baltimore. Of course there will be a Coast Guard investigation to determine the facts of how this could've happened.
I listened to one report that the ship had a power outage. Then tried to reverse (Thats the black smoke) but that twisted the boat and it headed towards the bridge base, eventually hitting it. An anchor was dropped but it was all too late. For those missing may God rest their soles.
Not clear (to me) from reporting if tugs ARE or ARE NOT required when transiting that channel. One commenter seemed to say the absence of tugs suggest a cost-cutting measure. That doesn't sound right to me ... aren't tugs required? And if so, what pilot would willingly transit without tugs?
Tugs were used to get the ship from the dock to the waterway, at which the ship was under its own power to travel down towards the estuary and into the ocean. The pilots on board command the ship once the tugs are released, until they pass through to a point at which the ship travels to open sea and then the pilots are picked up by a pilot tender. Naturally there is a lot of speculation and we will not fully understand until a full report is published.
It is my understanding that, other than a couple of places in the world, pilot's are onboard to advise not command.
I looked up, because I make assumptions and mistakes daily. Here is what I found which makes many of the searches as simple as possible.
Who is in charge of the ship, captain or the pilot?
Both a pilot and captain operate a shipping vessel. The former works primarily within a harbor or port, tasked with guiding the boat through a hazardous stretch. The latter maintains control of it on open waters. They are in charge of the everyday operation and management of the crew.
Who is in charge of the ship, captain or the pilot?
Both a pilot and captain operate a shipping vessel. The former works primarily within a harbor or port, tasked with guiding the boat through a hazardous stretch. The latter maintains control of it on open waters. They are in charge of the everyday operation and management of the crew.
It would be interesting to see an in depth risk assessment and the costs and benefits of using tugs. An incident like this happens, what, once every 40 years? How would the cost of tugs escorting every ship entering and leaving a harbor for an extra hour for 40 years compare to the cost of the low probability disasters? Obviously the loss of life is tragic and unquantifiable, but running extra tugs is not without risk either and in 40 years could probably be expected to cost a certain number of injuries and deaths of crews in accidents like fires or mechanical failures. We also don’t know how effective tugs would be in preventing every disaster, or whether they’d become a form of security theater. I’ve heard suggestions that individual ports may have different risk profiles and so maybe it would make sense to have tugs in some places but not others - for example if there are bridges without modern column protections and dolphins in place. That makes some sense to me, although the article also points out how those ports will likely lose business due to the extra costs. Maybe that would motivate them to modernize their infrastructure and lower their risk profiles, which would be a benefit.
I’d be happy to see tugs used if there are data driven decisions made and experts reach consensus that they would be a worthwhile benefit. But while the investigation into what happened here is only beginning I think any decisions made now would be knee jerk and not as well informed as they should be.
The Astoria Megler Bridge is a steel cantilever through truss bridge that connects Astoria, Oregon, and Point Ellice near Megler, Washington, across the lower Columbia River. It is the longest continuous truss bridge in North America, having opened 57 years ago in 1966.
The Astoria-Meglur Bridge is engineered similarly to the Francis Scott Key Bridge.
Let’s not have this tragedy bias our thinking as to what are the best sustainable solutions.
The Astoria-Meglur Bridge is engineered similarly to the Francis Scott Key Bridge.
Let’s not have this tragedy bias our thinking as to what are the best sustainable solutions.
worthwhile and thoughtful response, david.
i am sure that environmentalists may have had a hand in deciding to NOT use tugs, since they create pollution, right? think it over...
life itself is a delicate balance.
Actually tugs are pretty useless - and a danger to themselves - when trying to change the heading of a large ship doing 7-8 knots. A tug just isn't built to slip nearly sideways at even 5 kts. Using a more manageable angle, a tug isn't going to alter the ship's direction much. Which is why large ships have powerful bow thrusters. But even they aren't that much when a ship is doing 7-8kts.
Fred W
Putting a tug into the mix there would be like you standing next to a truck with no brakes that had started rolling downhill, and trying to push it to the side. If you pushed it with your hands, your hands would move along with the truck until you lost contact. If you leaned into it with your shoulder the truck would drag you along, making your body roll until you fell over. A tug attached with a cable would do the same thing and end up upside down in the water. Tugs helped move the DALI when she left the dock and turned in the harbor basin, but once she got into the channel and got going they dropped behind. Luckily they were still nearby and helped recover one of the victims so fast that he turned down going to the hospital.
The magic number is the 8+ kts speed. I'm sure there is a minimum steerage speed for that ship, maybe 4-4.5 knts. The ship should be restricted to steerage in those waters accompanied by 2 tugboats, And that I'm sure will be enforced when the bridge is cleared and during construction of the new. Keep in mind the ship's agents pay the tug boat fee and try to save so long as they operate in the rules of the harbor. And that's the key. Here in RI in the Providence harbor basin they receive tankers and freighters in the 700 ft range, piloted at the beginning of Narragansett Bay, about 12 miles from the basin. They are received by 1 tug at the beginning of the basin, and escorted out of the basin by a tug. They have 1 bridge to cross under, Narragansett Bay bridge and there is now serious talk among the pilots to have tug escort. Keep in mind there are no behemoths entering Narragansett Bay comparable to this monster. To me, having monsters like this operating at 8+ knots speed in restricted waters is asking for disaster. And that's exactly what they have.
The Dali had a pilot from the Mariland Board of Pilots in control of the vessel, including its speed. I suspect he was following all the rules for the Port of Baltimore. The investigation will determine the root cause; I will bet its mechanical or electrical. I also suspect the port will review its speed limits.
Exactly my thoughts. This disaster happened in very confined waters, I think. I would never suggest that tugs should be used to abort a runaway monster. But, they probably can (and should) be used to guide these cargo ships through confined areas at speeds where the tugs are in control of the situation. More costly, for sure .... that's the rub.
Another thought ... perhaps the support structures should never be vulnerable to a ship that has gone astray. If the channel is designed so that the ship runs aground before striking a support structure, that may be more cost effective than running tugs. But I don't think it is going to be acceptable in the future to leave these structures as vulnerable as they apparently are today.
Last edited:
Minimum steerage speed for such a ship is 6-7 kts, which is why she was doing 8kts. Even my huge Ruddercraft rudder on my 19ft Mariner is not effective below about 1/2 knot. And forget about any control in a crosswind if the Mariner centerboard is all the way up - the wind takes the bow where it wants. Draft (both air and water) in the Chesapeake and in Baltimore harbor is not unlimited. The only real solution to the mass and speed and windage issues is to reduce the size of ships - which will drive up transport costs for all the goods these ships carry. The ship had redundant generators to power the bridge and rudder, and a separate generator for the bow thruster. Probably the weakest system is the single screw direct driven by a monster diesel that is reversed by stopping the engine and restarting it in reverse rotation (typical for large ships, even the Coast Guard's tall ship Eagle had such an arrangement with it's original engine).
Let's see what the NTSB investigation comes up with for causes.
Fred W
Let's see what the NTSB investigation comes up with for causes.
Fred W
But the point is ... in that location it is simply dangerous to be at minimum steerage speed. Hence, there is an argument that steerage should be provided by tugs. As you point out, the limitations simply make it too risky to maneuver at the higher speeds necessary for control without assist by tugs.