Bridge Derangement Syndrome

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

41 Responses

  1. Greg In Ak
    Ignored
    says:

    “predictive programming,” Oh god this. Hadn’t heard the term before but have seen people doing it. Just crazy pants. That evil doers scatter the world with devious clues to be found is the most James Bond ripoff made in Italy in the 70’s idea ever but somehow people think it’s really happening. It’s always over things that happen frequently so there is always an example.

    Good piece.Report

  2. Alysia Ames
    Ignored
    says:

    It’s borderline miraculous that stuff like this doesn’t happen more often! Those ships are enormous and water is volatile!Report

  3. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    CNN is reporting that the NTSB is going to interview the pilots. So I imagine we’ll get a report eventually.

    Is it normal that the names of the people involved have not been made public? Is that something that we could reasonably expect? Is this too different from the Exxon Valdez to expect the equivalent of “Joe Hazelwood” punchlines in the nighttime show opening monologues?Report

    • Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      No idea if this is normal but prob is. I’m fine with holding off on the names for a few days since they will get a zillion gigawatt LED pointed right at them. Maybe at least find out if they might have f’d up everybody turns them into a meme about f’ing up.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Greg In Ak
        Ignored
        says:

        *SOMEBODY* f’ed up. Whether it’s the people who let the ship come to the US in the first place, the people who let the ship leave the dock, or the guys who took over the second the ship stopped touching the dock, it’s important to find out who.

        Because, I betcha, there were procedures in place to prevent this sort of thing.

        And these procedures were not followed.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          You can’t assume that anyone made a mistake.Report

          • CJColucci in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            So one would think, but we’re talking about Jaybird here.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            I admit: That’s my starting assumption.

            I mean, let’s start with “no mistakes were made”. What conclusions follow from that starting place? One of them seems to be “this couldn’t have been avoided”.

            That strikes me as absurd on its face.Report

            • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              I used to know a forensic mechanical engineer. He always told me that a surprising number of physical things just break and that my opinion was biased by the amount of time I spent around software.Report

            • Pinky in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              Risk is unavoidable. Didn’t we talk about this for two years?

              Risk is asymptotic to effort. You can, let’s say, double the effort to avoid risk and halve the risk. You can double it again and halve it again. You can’t eliminate the risk. Checking the bolts of an airplane? Smart move, but it doesn’t guarantee the flight. Not checking the bolts of an airplane? Dumb move, but it doesn’t guarantee a crash (depending on the bolt in question).Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Eh, here’s from The Daily Mail talking about a CNN interview with someone there:

                The Dali cargo ship which smashed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge suffered a ‘severe electrical problem’ while docked in Baltimore days before, according to a port worker.

                Julie Mitchell, co-administrator of Container Royalty, a company which tracks cargo, told CNN the ship was anchored at the port for at least 48 hours prior to the deadly crash.

                Following the devastation, she said: ‘And those two days, they were having serious power outages… they had a severe electrical problem. It was total power failure, loss of engine power, everything.’

                Mitchell explained that refrigerated boxes tripped breakers on board the ship on several occasions, and mechanics had been trying to fix the issue.

                She said she didn’t know whether the problem had been fixed when the ship set off.

                So I went to CNN to go straight to the horse’s mouth and maybe link to some video.

                And here’s what CNN says:

                Correction: An earlier version of this post contained an interview that was done by a CNN affiliate with a port worker who described electrical issues on the ship. Since this post was published, the subject of the interview has informed our affiliate that she cannot stand by her comments.

                So I dunno.

                Are there logs about stuff like that? If something like that happened, wouldn’t you want someone to write it down?

                I wonder how far back the black box goes. Does it discuss stuff that happened a day or two before?

                Because there’s risk and there’s *RISK*.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Of course I wouldn’t be stunned to find out that someone made mistakes.Report

        • Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Well yeah i’m pretty sure one or more people badly failed that day. We should get all the details and names. I’m sure we will. If we dont’ know the pilots names for a few days we’ll be fine.Report

  4. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    The black box stopped recording sensor data for a bit there. Jump ahead to about 2:05.

    “At zero-one twenty-four and fifty-nine seconds, numerous audible alarms were recorded on the ship’s audio… bridge audio. About the same time, the uh sensor data ceased recording. Although the DVR audio continues to record, using a redundant power source. At around zero-one twenty-six and two seconds, the uh resumed recording sensor data and during this time there were security commands and rudder orders recorded on the audio.”

    So we lost a minute and three seconds there.

    These things happen.Report

    • Andrew Donaldson in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Just eyeballing the video that would be consistent with the visable power loss in the video from the channel cam we haveReport

    • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      What I’ve also seen is that it’s permissible (and, in fact, typical practice) for these sort of recording boxes to have a lost-power mode that operates on a battery and only records voices rather than the full suite of sensors.

      So it doesn’t reinforce any conspiracy theories to point out that the data was not recorded; that’s actually to be expected in a situation like this.Report

  5. Burt Likko
    Ignored
    says:

    On the subject of “diversity hiring,” it bears repeating that DEI in hiring, as with affirmative action before it, nowhere requires a relaxation of job qualifications, particularly regarding professional competence or safety.

    That doesn’t mean people can’t screw it up, but the characterization that a more-qualifed white dude candidate is going to be passed over for a less-qualified not-white not-dude candidate ought be at minimum caveats that the less-qualified not-white not-dude candidate is nevertheless a candidate who meets or exceeds the stated qualifications for the position.

    I realize that nuances an argument of White Dude Grievance perhaps to the point of dismissing it, but, well, I mention this to underline that immediately after a disaster like this there were people using it for propaganda purposes and that alone ought to be registering on your bullshit detection devices.Report

  6. J_A
    Ignored
    says:

    Having been marginally involved in ships moving in and out of fuel terminals, my suggestion going forward is that any vessel big enough to damage infrastructure in case it looses power or steering (itself a not uncommon and normally not a dangerous event) has to accompanied by tugboats until it is in a place where there is no more risk of damage.

    The cost of rebuilding the bridge would probably cover a century of tugboats escorting every large vessel under that bridge.Report

    • CJColucci in reply to J_A
      Ignored
      says:

      That makes intuitive sense, but the industry doesn’t seem to do that, and not likely because no one ever thought of it. Any idea why?Report

      • J_A in reply to CJColucci
        Ignored
        says:

        Because compared to the cost of rebuilding a 1.6 miles bridge, tugboats are cheap, but compared to the price of a new car, or a new house in the suburbs, renting several tugboats for several hours is quite expensive. And what do we need them for, if the vessel has its own engines and a big rudder and two port pilots?

        For this to be implemented, it needs to come as a regulation, either from the maritime national authorities, or from ship classification authorities or maritime insurers, that would make vessels uninsurable unless they hire tugs to navigate close to critical infrastructure.

        In cases like this, the profit (not renting the tugboats) belongs to the ship owner, the losses (rebuilding the bridge) are paid by society. The damage is orders of magnitude bigger than the vessel’s insurance policy limits, or even the value of the ship itself.

        Usually each vessel is owned by a separate special purpose corporate vehicle. The most the owner, and its lenders, vessels of this nature are highly leveraged , can lose is the ownership of the vessel itselfReport

        • North in reply to J_A
          Ignored
          says:

          I am curious, are the ship owners not, at all, liable for the destruction of the bridge? Or is it simply that they’re structured so there’s no money in the legal entity that would be liable?Report

          • Jaybird in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            From what I’ve read, according to Maritime Law, the people shipping stuff are on the hook. The owners of the stuff in the containers, I guess.

            This is not something new, apparently. It dates back to prior to the Constitution.

            Or so I have read.Report

            • J_A in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              All vessels that I know are owned by companies that ONLY own that vessel, so any liability and risk (for the owner)
              is limited to the value of the vessel.

              A separate operating company (frequently, but not exclusively, an affiliate of the vessel owner) runs the vessel for a small fee, and its liability is limited to the total amount of the contracting. Both the operator and the owner carry liability insurance and whether the root cause is a machinery breakdown (a term of art) or faulty maintenance should define if the owner or the operator liability insurance is supposed to cover the loss. Above the insurance limit, and any excess liability insurance than might sit on top (*), your only recourse is against thinly capitalized (that’s it, little money) owner or operator company.

              The fact that the vessel was under the authority of the port pilots adds another potential liable agent to the mix, and for sure both owner and operator will bring the pilots and whoever employs them to the dispute.

              Jaybird above is also at least partially correct, but I’m not sure if the consigners (the guys sending cargo) would be involved in this case. See my answer to him.

              (*) You can, if you want, and you are prudent, have several layers of liability insurance, with a primary level covering claims from zero (there’s normally no or de minimis deductible in a liability claim) to X dollars, and one or more excess layers covering claims above x up to y, above y up to z, and so on. Each layer is cheaper than the one below because the possibility of such large claims is very small. But even the largest excess liability policy you can think about contracting won’t cover the cost of this accident.Report

            • J_A in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              You are for sure at least partially right. I’ve only been involved in one such claim, and we the consigners were liable for cost associated to tow and repair a vessel that had a failure in high seas due to bad weather.

              At least in that case, the argument is that bad weather is an act of God and all of us sending cargo had to pitch in in the cost of repair . But that was a property damage claim (the vessel itself was damaged, not third party property or lives). I have my doubts, but cannot vouch, that the consigners are liable for damages the vessel caused to third parties.Report

            • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              Useful to note that the question of “when a ship sinks who pays for it” is a question so complicated that answering it involved the invention of the corporation as a concept.Report

          • J_A in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            All vessels that I know are owned by companies that ONLY own that vessel, so any liability and risk (for the owner)
            is limited to the value of the vessel.

            A separate operating company (frequently, but not exclusively, an affiliate of the vessel owner) runs the vessel for a small fee, and its liability is limited to the total amount of the contracting. Both the operator and the owner carry liability insurance and whether the root cause is a machinery breakdown (a term of art) or faulty maintenance should define if the owner or the operator liability insurance is supposed to cover the loss. Above the insurance limit, and any excess liability insurance than might sit on top (*), your only recourse is against thinly capitalized (that’s it, little money) owner or operator company.

            The fact that the vessel was under the authority of the port pilots adds another potential liable agent to the mix, and for sure both owner and operator will bring the pilots and whoever employs them to the dispute.

            Jaybird above is also at least partially correct, but I’m not sure if the consigners (the guys sending cargo) would be involved in this case. See my answer to him.

            (*) You can, if you want, and you are prudent, have several layers of liability insurance, with a primary level covering claims from zero (there’s normally no or de minimis deductible in a liability claim) to X dollars, and one or more excess layers covering claims above x up to y, above y up to z, and so on. Each layer is cheaper than the one below because the possibility of such large claims is very small. But even the largest excess liability policy you can think about contracting won’t cover the cost of this accident.Report

            • North in reply to J_A
              Ignored
              says:

              Thank you J_A, I suspected something along those lines would be the case just the same way most home builders dissolve and reform their companies after a few years to dodge construction defect claims.Report

        • Michael Cain in reply to J_A
          Ignored
          says:

          Not disagreeing, just extending the discussion.

          At the time the bridge was built, there were 90,000-ton bulk cargo ships already sailing capable of taking out the bridge piers as designed. Everyone knew bigger ships were coming.

          The state/federal highway authorities chose to build a bridge downstream* from all of the port’s cargo terminals. If one of the consequences of that should have been a new requirement for tug assistance over much greater distances, who should pay?

          * Baltimore has small tides, but sufficient to affect the current**. Also holds true, I suspect, for extreme precipitation effects.

          ** Years ago when I was supervising a group of high-powered tech experts the building was on the edge of a “river” that was actually a tidal estuary. One of the big guns in the group — meaning one of the top three or four experts in the field in the country — lived on the other side of the estuary and his commuting choices were drive several/many kilometers, or canoe 200 meters. His preference for much of the year was to canoe. He couldn’t paddle against the peak tidal flows. If we were hosting a meeting where I needed him, I consulted the tide tables to see if I could schedule things to accommodate him.Report

  7. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m going to go way out on a limb here and suggest it was a cascading series of failures because things like this almost always are.

    A flaw in the design, a failure to staff properly, a failure to follow protocol here and a cut corner there and so on and so on.

    Not unavoidable, but not “Hey, lemme just leave the wheel for a bit and go take a leak what’s the worst that could happen.”Report

  8. CJColucci
    Ignored
    says:

    A useful primer on liability issues:

    https://www.kreindler.com/library/shipowners-limitation-of-liability-act

    There’s a similar useful article on insurance issues, but I couldn’t copy-and-paste both here, so I’ll send a separate post.Report

  9. CJColucci
    Ignored
    says:

    I have had over the years a nodding acquaintance with admiralty law and lawyers (which has been enough to make me the office’s go-to guy for our extremely rare maritime cases) and one thing I learned that surprised me was how common ship collisions on the high seas (not in crowded ports or rivers) are.*
    This seems odd because, relative to the ocean, even the largest ship is a mere speck. But most of the ocean has no ships to collide. Most commercial maritime traffic is in relatively confined, logical shipping lanes that allow quick passage and minimal fuel consumption, so the relevant parts of the ocean are far more crowded than one would think.

    * “Common” in the sense that, although statistically almost insignificant (like airline crashes), they happen far more often than uninformed common sense would lead one to expect.Report

    • InMD in reply to CJColucci
      Ignored
      says:

      I took maritime as a filler elective my last year in law school and there actually is a pretty active little bar for that kind of work it in Baltimore. Damned if I remember anything substantive from it but your comment reminded me of the day the prof played us 30 minutes of the stupidest collisions caught on camera, many of which were clearly right off the coast of Italy.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        Is the bar called “Rum, Sodomy And The Lash”?Report

        • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          Heh, slightly different type of bar but I am certain there is a watering hole in fells point with that name.Report

          • CJColucci in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            I used to have a recurring dream in which I had to attend a fourth year of law school. Maybe that’s a nightmare. In any case, in the dream I was looking for courses to take. When I was in law school, Admiralty was offered in alternate years and, as it turned out, was offered in what would have been my nightmare fourth year. So I signed up for that. I don’t recall what else I signed up for.Report

  10. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Apparently the US 59 Bridge in Oklahoma was hit by a barge yesterday.

    So conspiracy theorists need to calm down. This sort of thing happens all the time.Report

    • J_A in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      It does happen all the time. The only odd thing here was the massive size of both vessel and bridge. A smaller vessel would not have taken such a big structure.

      I once asked an admiral why a midsize navy vessel was not doing what I had expected it to do. His answer: “Vessels don’t have brakes”.

      Meaning, once they are moving, it’s very difficult to stop or steer them. Both need lots of space and time. Piloting them in closed waterways like in Baltimore requires specialized pilots, and even so, stuff happens.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Barges hit Mississippi River bridges multiple times each year. Sometimes multiple times in a month. The old Mississippi River bridge at Vicksburg by itself seems to average multiple collisions per year.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *