Ed P wrote on 4/4/2024 5:10 PM:
> On 4/4/2024 3:05 PM, 😎 Mighty Wannabe ✅ wrote:
>> Ed P wrote on 4/4/2024 2:34 PM:
>>> On 4/4/2024 12:00 PM, 😎 Mighty Wannabe ✅ wrote:
>>>> Ed P wrote on 4/4/2024 11:22 AM:
>>>>> On 4/4/2024 10:08 AM, 😎 Mighty Wannabe ✅ wrote:
>>>>>> Ed P wrote on 4/4/2024 9:06 AM:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An anchored ship always faces the anchor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://maritimesa.org/nautical-science-grade-11/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/10/11.2.4.3_fig_2.jpg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.myseatime.com/blogadm/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/swinging-circle-of-the-ship-at-anchor.jpg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At least you used the word "eventually".  Ships don't pivot very
>>>>>>> fast and the anchor would help stop for forward motion until
>>>>>>> about stopped. Then the currents take over and eventually it
>>>>>>> will swing around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once stopped, they can pull the anchor up and drift with the
>>>>>>> currents if that is better at the tine and position.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People say "a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing". That
>>>>>> applies to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For humanity's sake, instead of wasting time arguing till the
>>>>>> cows come home, why don't you watch the collision of the ship
>>>>>> against the base of the Baltimore Key Bridge? It's all over the
>>>>>> internet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before the collision, the ship appeared to have lost the lights,
>>>>>> and then the lights came back on. Then the ship suddenly pulled
>>>>>> to the starboard side (right hand side) and impacted the bridge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only reasonable explanation for the ship suddenly jerking to
>>>>>> the starboard side is that the anchor had snared the sea bottom
>>>>>> and the anchor chain was thus pulling on the right hand side of
>>>>>> the bow, because reportedly the ship had deliberately dropped the
>>>>>> anchor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess you know better than the pilot
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Naturally.
>>>>
>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/3cx5p9bn
>>>>>
>>>>> A pilot on board the cargo ship that crashed into the Baltimore
>>>>> bridge tried to swing it clear of a collision by dropping its port
>>>>> anchor to pivot it away, authorities said.
>>>>
>>>> Now you have proven my point, that dropping the anchor can swing
>>>> the ship around. Unfortunately the "Homer Simpson" Baltimore
>>>> harbour pilot dropped the anchor from the wrong side so the ship
>>>> pulled towards the bridge support instead. Maybe he doesn't know
>>>> which side is called "port" and which side is called "starboard".
>>>> Maybe the anchor buttons on the control panel should have been
>>>> labeled "left" and "right" instead of "port" and "starboard" to
>>>> make it more intuitive for "Homer Simpson" Baltimore harbour pilots.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, you've proven you were incorrect.  The front of the ship hit,
>>> not the rear that swung around.
>>>
>>
>> For humanity's sake, watch the freaking video of the ship accident.
>> The ship suddenly jerked to the right and hit the Baltimore Key
>> Bridge. Of course it could not totally swing around, you freaking
>> idiot, because the bridge fell down and trapped it there.
>>
>>
> Oh, I bet you had a erection writing that.  Such a classy guy.
>

It should be "an", not "a".

On 4/4/2024 5:10 PM, Ed P wrote:
> On 4/4/2024 3:05 PM, 😎 Mighty Wannabe ✅ wrote:
>> Ed P wrote on 4/4/2024 2:34 PM:
>>> On 4/4/2024 12:00 PM, 😎 Mighty Wannabe ✅ wrote:
>>>> Ed P wrote on 4/4/2024 11:22 AM:
>>>>> On 4/4/2024 10:08 AM, 😎 Mighty Wannabe ✅ wrote:
>>>>>> Ed P wrote on 4/4/2024 9:06 AM:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An anchored ship always faces the anchor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://maritimesa.org/nautical-science-grade-11/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/10/11.2.4.3_fig_2.jpg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.myseatime.com/blogadm/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/swinging-circle-of-the-ship-at-anchor.jpg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At least you used the word "eventually".  Ships don't pivot very
>>>>>>> fast and the anchor would help stop for forward motion until
>>>>>>> about stopped. Then the currents take over and eventually it will
>>>>>>> swing around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once stopped, they can pull the anchor up and drift with the
>>>>>>> currents if that is better at the tine and position.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People say "a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing". That
>>>>>> applies to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For humanity's sake, instead of wasting time arguing till the cows
>>>>>> come home, why don't you watch the collision of the ship against
>>>>>> the base of the Baltimore Key Bridge? It's all over the internet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before the collision, the ship appeared to have lost the lights,
>>>>>> and then the lights came back on. Then the ship suddenly pulled to
>>>>>> the starboard side (right hand side) and impacted the bridge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only reasonable explanation for the ship suddenly jerking to
>>>>>> the starboard side is that the anchor had snared the sea bottom
>>>>>> and the anchor chain was thus pulling on the right hand side of
>>>>>> the bow, because reportedly the ship had deliberately dropped the
>>>>>> anchor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess you know better than the pilot
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Naturally.
>>>>
>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/3cx5p9bn
>>>>>
>>>>> A pilot on board the cargo ship that crashed into the Baltimore
>>>>> bridge tried to swing it clear of a collision by dropping its port
>>>>> anchor to pivot it away, authorities said.
>>>>
>>>> Now you have proven my point, that dropping the anchor can swing the
>>>> ship around. Unfortunately the "Homer Simpson" Baltimore harbour
>>>> pilot dropped the anchor from the wrong side so the ship pulled
>>>> towards the bridge support instead. Maybe he doesn't know which side
>>>> is called "port" and which side is called "starboard". Maybe the
>>>> anchor buttons on the control panel which have been labeled "left"
>>>> and "right" instead of "port" and "starboard" to make it more
>>>> intuitive for "Homer Simpson" Baltimore harbour pilots.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, you've proven you were incorrect.  The front of the ship hit, not
>>> the rear that swung around.
>>>
>>
>> For humanity's sake, watch the freaking video of the ship accident.
>> The ship suddenly jerked to the right and hit the Baltimore Key
>> Bridge. Of course it could not totally swing around, you freaking
>> idiot, because the bridge fell down and trapped it there.
>>
>>
> Oh, I bet you had a erection writing that.  Such a classy guy.
>

Hey look, no "off" button on the bridge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cji10d3YPss&ab_channel=WRAL

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 3 Apr 2024 23:36:44 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
? <@.> wrote:

>
>>
>> It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the scene,
>> if someone was at fault and if so, who it was.
>
>
>You keep trying to make excuses for the Baltimore harbour pilots when
>their human error is the most likely culprit of this disaster.
>

I'm not making excuses for Baltiomre pilots. I'm saying you don't know
a darn thing about how the law works. You show that over and over
again.

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 4 Apr 2024 19:12:08 +1100, Xeno
<xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>
>> Bad fuel won't make the power go out and come back on.
>>
>The return of power was probably the emergency lighting generator(s)
>kicking in. They will not provide propulsion, just lighting, hence they
>wouldn't/couldn't prevent shit happening.
>>
Another thing Wannabe should have thought of.

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:52:10 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
? <@.> wrote:

>Ed P wrote on 4/4/2024 8:58 AM:
>> On 4/4/2024 6:18 AM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>> rbowman wrote on 4/4/2024 1:23 AM:
>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 23:52:58 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The container ship was fine sailing the seven seas until the Baltimore
>>>>> harbour pilots laid their hands on it.
>>>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2024/03/26/baltimore-
>>>>
>>>> bridge-collapse-ship-dali/73105394007/
>>>>
>>>> "The ship in Tuesday's crash, Dali, was involved in at least one prior
>>>> accident when it collided with a shipping pier in Belgium.
>>>>
>>>> That 2016 incident occurred as the Dali was leaving port in Antwerp and
>>>> struck a loading pier made of stone, causing damage to the ship’s
>>>> stern,
>>>> according to VesselFinder.com, a site that tracks ships across the
>>>> world.
>>>> An investigation determined a mistake made by the ship’s master and
>>>> pilot
>>>> was to blame.
>>>
>>> Another pilot mistake. Belgium also hires "Homer Simpson"-type of
>>> pilots. The "stern" of a ship is the rear-end of the ship. Apparently
>>> the pilot put the ship in reverse by mistake and rear-ended ship
>>> against the pier.
>>>
>>
>> Apparently you are wrong again.  Do you know how ships steer? Unlike a
>> car, it is the the back, not the front.
>>
>>
>
>A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A ship's propeller can spin
>backward, just like your car tire can spin backward when in reverse
>gear. Are you really that dumb, or merely trying to drive up your number
>of posts to catch up to Peeler's?

Ad hominems don't help your image. Or convince anyone, since everyone
here knows that Ed is not dumb at all.

And how come you replied to Ed's post twice and each time you snipped
the link he gave which contradicted your theory, portrayed as apparent,
that the "pilot put the ship in reverse by mistake and rear-ended ship
against the pier". That's not what the link Ed posted said. is that why
you snipped it?
Here it is again:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/26/baltimore-bridge-ship-previous-collision-antwerp-2016

>
>
>
>
>

On 4/3/2024 9:13 PM, Bob F wrote:
> On 4/3/2024 8:06 PM, micky wrote:
>> In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 3 Apr 2024 22:28:36 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
>> ? <@.> wrote:
>>
>>> Bob F wrote on 4/3/2024 9:58 PM:
>>>> On 4/3/2024 6:30 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>> Ed P wrote on 4/3/2024 9:05 PM:
>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 8:31 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>> Bob F wrote on 4/3/2024 7:59 PM:
>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>>>> micky wrote on 4/3/2024 9:46 AM:
>>>>>>>>>> Can't find the thread about the Key Bridge being knocked down in
>>>>>>>>>> Baltimore, but wanted to comment on the racist pigs around the
>>>>>>>>>> USA who
>>>>>>>>>> claimed it had something to do with seeking diversity in who the
>>>>>>>>>> shipping company hires.   What nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did you notice that the news kept mentioning the "pilot" instead
>>>>>>>>> of the "captain"? The captain didn't hit the Baltimore Key
>>>>>>>>> Bridge. The "pilot" who was working for Baltimore was steering
>>>>>>>>> the ship, not the captain. The pilot was hired to do just that,
>>>>>>>>> because the pilot knows the water channel like the back of his
>>>>>>>>> hand. The pilot knows where the ship should avoid so that it
>>>>>>>>> won't run aground.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Baltimore authorities cannot sue the captain of the ship or owner
>>>>>>>>> of the ship, because the "pilot" who was steering the ship worked
>>>>>>>>> for Baltimore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The pilot did not hit the bridge, the ship hit the bridge, after
>>>>>>>> it's power systems failed. You actually think that was the pilots
>>>>>>>> fault?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How would you like to have been the second pilot, who was there
>>>>>>>> being trained?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Baltimore's pilot was at the helm. Good luck blaming anyone
>>>>>>> else for the accident. The US will have to pick up the tab for
>>>>>>> third party liability (people hurt/killed as a result of the bridge
>>>>>>> collapse) and property damage (the bridge and the vehicles that
>>>>>>> fell into the water).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How We Steer A Cargo Ship
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T-wFfPm37U
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> He was at the helm, but the helm did not work.  Can't pin that on
>>>>>> him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice video.  Did you notice in the last minute that the engines were
>>>>>> running and making power?  The ship that hit the bridge did not have
>>>>>> that luxury.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Baltimore's pilot was at the helm. He might have accidentally killed
>>>>> the power by pushing the wrong button.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you Rod Speed??? You certainly have his stupid know it all
>>>> attitude.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I merely put forward the best, unbiased analysis of what caused the
>>> accident.
>>
>> Might be unbiased, but definitely not the best analysis.
>>
>> Other have answered pretty well but since you replied first to my post,
>> I will take the bait.
>>
>> If I were driving a Ford with 1000 miles on it, and the rack and pinion
>> locked up so that I coudlnt' steer it, do you think I would be liable
>> for the damages that followed or Ford would?
>>
>> It's the same here.  Assuming the engine could have been turned off, and
>> that the pilot had the power to do that, and he did it, that would make
>> the pilot and his employer liable. But you have to prove that by a
>> preponderance of the evidence.
>>
>> It could also be that the owner of the ship didn't maintain the engines
>> properly and that caused the engines to stop.  That would make the owner
>> liable.
>>
>> It could be, I hear, that the fuel they used was bad and that made the
>> engnine and the electrical generating engines stop. That could make the
>> vendor of the fuel liable, unless maybe he took the standard amount of
>> care but someone else not related to the fuel vendor intentionally
>> damaged the fuel.   Or it could be the fuel wholesaler or producer made
>> bad fuel that fouled the engines.
>>
>> It could be that none of those parties were negligent but it turns out
>> the electical generating engines fail at a certain age, and it was that
>> old but they buyers weren't warned.   The maker of the engines might
>> have known they fail at that age and not warned the buyers, or maybe he
>> didn't know this.
>>
>> I'm sure there are other things that could have caused this.
>>
>> It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the scene,
>> if someone was at fault and if so, who it was.
>
> Whoever made the decisions to not properly maintain the essential
> equipment needed to control the ships motion?
>

I have seen no reason to conclude that was the cause.

"It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the
scene, if someone was at fault and if so, who it was."

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 23:03:30 -0600, bud-- <null@void.com> wrote:

>On 4/3/2024 9:13 PM, Bob F wrote:
>> On 4/3/2024 8:06 PM, micky wrote:
>>> In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 3 Apr 2024 22:28:36 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
>>> ? <@.> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob F wrote on 4/3/2024 9:58 PM:
>>>>> On 4/3/2024 6:30 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>> Ed P wrote on 4/3/2024 9:05 PM:
>>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 8:31 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bob F wrote on 4/3/2024 7:59 PM:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> micky wrote on 4/3/2024 9:46 AM:
>>>>>>>>>>> Can't find the thread about the Key Bridge being knocked down in
>>>>>>>>>>> Baltimore, but wanted to comment on the racist pigs around the
>>>>>>>>>>> USA who
>>>>>>>>>>> claimed it had something to do with seeking diversity in who the
>>>>>>>>>>> shipping company hires.   What nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Did you notice that the news kept mentioning the "pilot" instead
>>>>>>>>>> of the "captain"? The captain didn't hit the Baltimore Key
>>>>>>>>>> Bridge. The "pilot" who was working for Baltimore was steering
>>>>>>>>>> the ship, not the captain. The pilot was hired to do just that,
>>>>>>>>>> because the pilot knows the water channel like the back of his
>>>>>>>>>> hand. The pilot knows where the ship should avoid so that it
>>>>>>>>>> won't run aground.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Baltimore authorities cannot sue the captain of the ship or owner
>>>>>>>>>> of the ship, because the "pilot" who was steering the ship worked
>>>>>>>>>> for Baltimore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The pilot did not hit the bridge, the ship hit the bridge, after
>>>>>>>>> it's power systems failed. You actually think that was the pilots
>>>>>>>>> fault?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How would you like to have been the second pilot, who was there
>>>>>>>>> being trained?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Baltimore's pilot was at the helm. Good luck blaming anyone
>>>>>>>> else for the accident. The US will have to pick up the tab for
>>>>>>>> third party liability (people hurt/killed as a result of the bridge
>>>>>>>> collapse) and property damage (the bridge and the vehicles that
>>>>>>>> fell into the water).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How We Steer A Cargo Ship
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T-wFfPm37U
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He was at the helm, but the helm did not work.  Can't pin that on
>>>>>>> him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nice video.  Did you notice in the last minute that the engines were
>>>>>>> running and making power?  The ship that hit the bridge did not have
>>>>>>> that luxury.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Baltimore's pilot was at the helm. He might have accidentally killed
>>>>>> the power by pushing the wrong button.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you Rod Speed??? You certainly have his stupid know it all
>>>>> attitude.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I merely put forward the best, unbiased analysis of what caused the
>>>> accident.
>>>
>>> Might be unbiased, but definitely not the best analysis.
>>>
>>> Other have answered pretty well but since you replied first to my post,
>>> I will take the bait.
>>>
>>> If I were driving a Ford with 1000 miles on it, and the rack and pinion
>>> locked up so that I coudlnt' steer it, do you think I would be liable
>>> for the damages that followed or Ford would?
>>>
>>> It's the same here.  Assuming the engine could have been turned off, and
>>> that the pilot had the power to do that, and he did it, that would make
>>> the pilot and his employer liable. But you have to prove that by a
>>> preponderance of the evidence.
>>>
>>> It could also be that the owner of the ship didn't maintain the engines
>>> properly and that caused the engines to stop.  That would make the owner
>>> liable.
>>>
>>> It could be, I hear, that the fuel they used was bad and that made the
>>> engnine and the electrical generating engines stop. That could make the
>>> vendor of the fuel liable, unless maybe he took the standard amount of
>>> care but someone else not related to the fuel vendor intentionally
>>> damaged the fuel.   Or it could be the fuel wholesaler or producer made
>>> bad fuel that fouled the engines.
>>>
>>> It could be that none of those parties were negligent but it turns out
>>> the electical generating engines fail at a certain age, and it was that
>>> old but they buyers weren't warned.   The maker of the engines might
>>> have known they fail at that age and not warned the buyers, or maybe he
>>> didn't know this.
>>>
>>> I'm sure there are other things that could have caused this.
>>>
>>> It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the scene,
>>> if someone was at fault and if so, who it was.
>>
>> Whoever made the decisions to not properly maintain the essential
>> equipment needed to control the ships motion?
>>
>
>I have seen no reason to conclude that was the cause.
>
>"It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the
>scene, if someone was at fault and if so, who it was."

There was something in the news recently about this particular ship
having had propuldion issues in the past - like back in June. The Dali
passed a June 2023 inspection in Chile. A faulty pressure gauge for
the fuel heaters was identified but fixed before the vessel left the
port.

The 9-year-old Dali was also detained by port officials in San
Antonio, Chile last June after inspectors discovered a problem related
to the vessel's "propulsion and auxiliary machinery," according toThe
Washington Post, which cited records from the intergovernmental
shipping regulator Tokyo MOU.

The ship's owner, Grace Ocean Private Ltd., and operator, Synergy
Marine, "have been sued at least four times in U.S. federal court on
allegations of negligence and other claims tied to worker injuries on
other ships owned and operated by the Singapore-based companies,"
according toThe Associated Press.

Maersk was also sanctioned last year by the U.S. Labor Department for
allegedly stopping employees from reporting safety concerns, documents
published by The Lever revealed.

micky wrote on 4/4/2024 10:06 PM:
> In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:52:10 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
> ? <@.> wrote:
>
>> Ed P wrote on 4/4/2024 8:58 AM:
>>> On 4/4/2024 6:18 AM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>> rbowman wrote on 4/4/2024 1:23 AM:
>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 23:52:58 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The container ship was fine sailing the seven seas until the Baltimore
>>>>>> harbour pilots laid their hands on it.
>>>>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2024/03/26/baltimore-
>>>>>
>>>>> bridge-collapse-ship-dali/73105394007/
>>>>>
>>>>> "The ship in Tuesday's crash, Dali, was involved in at least one prior
>>>>> accident when it collided with a shipping pier in Belgium.
>>>>>
>>>>> That 2016 incident occurred as the Dali was leaving port in Antwerp and
>>>>> struck a loading pier made of stone, causing damage to the ship’s
>>>>> stern,
>>>>> according to VesselFinder.com, a site that tracks ships across the
>>>>> world.
>>>>> An investigation determined a mistake made by the ship’s master and
>>>>> pilot
>>>>> was to blame.
>>>> Another pilot mistake. Belgium also hires "Homer Simpson"-type of
>>>> pilots. The "stern" of a ship is the rear-end of the ship. Apparently
>>>> the pilot put the ship in reverse by mistake and rear-ended ship
>>>> against the pier.
>>>>
>>> Apparently you are wrong again.  Do you know how ships steer? Unlike a
>>> car, it is the the back, not the front.
>>>
>>>
>> A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A ship's propeller can spin
>> backward, just like your car tire can spin backward when in reverse
>> gear. Are you really that dumb, or merely trying to drive up your number
>> of posts to catch up to Peeler's?
> Ad hominems don't help your image. Or convince anyone, since everyone
> here knows that Ed is not dumb at all.
>
> And how come you replied to Ed's post twice and each time you snipped
> the link he gave which contradicted your theory, portrayed as apparent,
> that the "pilot put the ship in reverse by mistake and rear-ended ship
> against the pier". That's not what the link Ed posted said. is that why
> you snipped it?
>
> Here it is again:
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/26/baltimore-bridge-ship-previous-collision-antwerp-2016
>

What has the ship's previous collision got to do with this collision?
The ship was under the control of harbour pilots in previous collision.

Clare Snyder wrote on 4/5/2024 12:24 AM:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 23:03:30 -0600, bud-- <null@void.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/3/2024 9:13 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2024 8:06 PM, micky wrote:
>>>> In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 3 Apr 2024 22:28:36 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
>>>> ? <@.> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob F wrote on 4/3/2024 9:58 PM:
>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 6:30 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>> Ed P wrote on 4/3/2024 9:05 PM:
>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 8:31 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Bob F wrote on 4/3/2024 7:59 PM:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> micky wrote on 4/3/2024 9:46 AM:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can't find the thread about the Key Bridge being knocked down in
>>>>>>>>>>>> Baltimore, but wanted to comment on the racist pigs around the
>>>>>>>>>>>> USA who
>>>>>>>>>>>> claimed it had something to do with seeking diversity in who the
>>>>>>>>>>>> shipping company hires.   What nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Did you notice that the news kept mentioning the "pilot" instead
>>>>>>>>>>> of the "captain"? The captain didn't hit the Baltimore Key
>>>>>>>>>>> Bridge. The "pilot" who was working for Baltimore was steering
>>>>>>>>>>> the ship, not the captain. The pilot was hired to do just that,
>>>>>>>>>>> because the pilot knows the water channel like the back of his
>>>>>>>>>>> hand. The pilot knows where the ship should avoid so that it
>>>>>>>>>>> won't run aground.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Baltimore authorities cannot sue the captain of the ship or owner
>>>>>>>>>>> of the ship, because the "pilot" who was steering the ship worked
>>>>>>>>>>> for Baltimore.
>>>>>>>>>> The pilot did not hit the bridge, the ship hit the bridge, after
>>>>>>>>>> it's power systems failed. You actually think that was the pilots
>>>>>>>>>> fault?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How would you like to have been the second pilot, who was there
>>>>>>>>>> being trained?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Baltimore's pilot was at the helm. Good luck blaming anyone
>>>>>>>>> else for the accident. The US will have to pick up the tab for
>>>>>>>>> third party liability (people hurt/killed as a result of the bridge
>>>>>>>>> collapse) and property damage (the bridge and the vehicles that
>>>>>>>>> fell into the water).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How We Steer A Cargo Ship
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T-wFfPm37U
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He was at the helm, but the helm did not work.  Can't pin that on
>>>>>>>> him.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nice video.  Did you notice in the last minute that the engines were
>>>>>>>> running and making power?  The ship that hit the bridge did not have
>>>>>>>> that luxury.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Baltimore's pilot was at the helm. He might have accidentally killed
>>>>>>> the power by pushing the wrong button.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you Rod Speed??? You certainly have his stupid know it all
>>>>>> attitude.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I merely put forward the best, unbiased analysis of what caused the
>>>>> accident.
>>>> Might be unbiased, but definitely not the best analysis.
>>>>
>>>> Other have answered pretty well but since you replied first to my post,
>>>> I will take the bait.
>>>>
>>>> If I were driving a Ford with 1000 miles on it, and the rack and pinion
>>>> locked up so that I coudlnt' steer it, do you think I would be liable
>>>> for the damages that followed or Ford would?
>>>>
>>>> It's the same here.  Assuming the engine could have been turned off, and
>>>> that the pilot had the power to do that, and he did it, that would make
>>>> the pilot and his employer liable. But you have to prove that by a
>>>> preponderance of the evidence.
>>>>
>>>> It could also be that the owner of the ship didn't maintain the engines
>>>> properly and that caused the engines to stop.  That would make the owner
>>>> liable.
>>>>
>>>> It could be, I hear, that the fuel they used was bad and that made the
>>>> engnine and the electrical generating engines stop. That could make the
>>>> vendor of the fuel liable, unless maybe he took the standard amount of
>>>> care but someone else not related to the fuel vendor intentionally
>>>> damaged the fuel.   Or it could be the fuel wholesaler or producer made
>>>> bad fuel that fouled the engines.
>>>>
>>>> It could be that none of those parties were negligent but it turns out
>>>> the electical generating engines fail at a certain age, and it was that
>>>> old but they buyers weren't warned.   The maker of the engines might
>>>> have known they fail at that age and not warned the buyers, or maybe he
>>>> didn't know this.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure there are other things that could have caused this.
>>>>
>>>> It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the scene,
>>>> if someone was at fault and if so, who it was.
>>> Whoever made the decisions to not properly maintain the essential
>>> equipment needed to control the ships motion?
>>>
>> I have seen no reason to conclude that was the cause.
>>
>> "It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the
>> scene, if someone was at fault and if so, who it was."
>
> There was something in the news recently about this particular ship
> having had propuldion issues in the past - like back in June. The Dali
> passed a June 2023 inspection in Chile. A faulty pressure gauge for
> the fuel heaters was identified but fixed before the vessel left the
> port.
>
>
> The 9-year-old Dali was also detained by port officials in San
> Antonio, Chile last June after inspectors discovered a problem related
> to the vessel's "propulsion and auxiliary machinery," according toThe
> Washington Post, which cited records from the intergovernmental
> shipping regulator Tokyo MOU.
>
> The ship's owner, Grace Ocean Private Ltd., and operator, Synergy
> Marine, "have been sued at least four times in U.S. federal court on
> allegations of negligence and other claims tied to worker injuries on
> other ships owned and operated by the Singapore-based companies,"
> according toThe Associated Press.

Worker injuries in other ships have nothing to do with the Baltimore
harbour pilots running the ship into the bridge.

> Maersk was also sanctioned last year by the U.S. Labor Department for
> allegedly stopping employees from reporting safety concerns, documents
> published by The Lever revealed.

The US abuses sanctions. The US also sanctioned ham sandwiches. Do you
think ham sandwiches wrecked the Baltimore Key Bridge?

micky wrote on 4/4/2024 8:11 PM:
> In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 3 Apr 2024 23:36:44 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
> ? <@.> wrote:
>
>>> It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the scene,
>>> if someone was at fault and if so, who it was.
>>
>> You keep trying to make excuses for the Baltimore harbour pilots when
>> their human error is the most likely culprit of this disaster.
>>
> I'm not making excuses for Baltiomre pilots. I'm saying you don't know
> a darn thing about how the law works. You show that over and over
> again.

You are definitely making excuses for Baltimore pilots. You have the
attitude of "my boys can do no wrong" and try to blame everything but
the Baltimore pilots running the ship into the bridge.

On 4/4/2024 10:24 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 23:03:30 -0600, bud-- <null@void.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/3/2024 9:13 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2024 8:06 PM, micky wrote:
>>>> In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 3 Apr 2024 22:28:36 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
>>>> ? <@.> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob F wrote on 4/3/2024 9:58 PM:
>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 6:30 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>> Ed P wrote on 4/3/2024 9:05 PM:
>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 8:31 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Bob F wrote on 4/3/2024 7:59 PM:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> micky wrote on 4/3/2024 9:46 AM:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can't find the thread about the Key Bridge being knocked down in
>>>>>>>>>>>> Baltimore, but wanted to comment on the racist pigs around the
>>>>>>>>>>>> USA who
>>>>>>>>>>>> claimed it had something to do with seeking diversity in who the
>>>>>>>>>>>> shipping company hires.   What nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Did you notice that the news kept mentioning the "pilot" instead
>>>>>>>>>>> of the "captain"? The captain didn't hit the Baltimore Key
>>>>>>>>>>> Bridge. The "pilot" who was working for Baltimore was steering
>>>>>>>>>>> the ship, not the captain. The pilot was hired to do just that,
>>>>>>>>>>> because the pilot knows the water channel like the back of his
>>>>>>>>>>> hand. The pilot knows where the ship should avoid so that it
>>>>>>>>>>> won't run aground.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Baltimore authorities cannot sue the captain of the ship or owner
>>>>>>>>>>> of the ship, because the "pilot" who was steering the ship worked
>>>>>>>>>>> for Baltimore.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The pilot did not hit the bridge, the ship hit the bridge, after
>>>>>>>>>> it's power systems failed. You actually think that was the pilots
>>>>>>>>>> fault?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How would you like to have been the second pilot, who was there
>>>>>>>>>> being trained?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Baltimore's pilot was at the helm. Good luck blaming anyone
>>>>>>>>> else for the accident. The US will have to pick up the tab for
>>>>>>>>> third party liability (people hurt/killed as a result of the bridge
>>>>>>>>> collapse) and property damage (the bridge and the vehicles that
>>>>>>>>> fell into the water).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How We Steer A Cargo Ship
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T-wFfPm37U
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He was at the helm, but the helm did not work.  Can't pin that on
>>>>>>>> him.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nice video.  Did you notice in the last minute that the engines were
>>>>>>>> running and making power?  The ship that hit the bridge did not have
>>>>>>>> that luxury.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Baltimore's pilot was at the helm. He might have accidentally killed
>>>>>>> the power by pushing the wrong button.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you Rod Speed??? You certainly have his stupid know it all
>>>>>> attitude.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I merely put forward the best, unbiased analysis of what caused the
>>>>> accident.
>>>>
>>>> Might be unbiased, but definitely not the best analysis.
>>>>
>>>> Other have answered pretty well but since you replied first to my post,
>>>> I will take the bait.
>>>>
>>>> If I were driving a Ford with 1000 miles on it, and the rack and pinion
>>>> locked up so that I coudlnt' steer it, do you think I would be liable
>>>> for the damages that followed or Ford would?
>>>>
>>>> It's the same here.  Assuming the engine could have been turned off, and
>>>> that the pilot had the power to do that, and he did it, that would make
>>>> the pilot and his employer liable. But you have to prove that by a
>>>> preponderance of the evidence.
>>>>
>>>> It could also be that the owner of the ship didn't maintain the engines
>>>> properly and that caused the engines to stop.  That would make the owner
>>>> liable.
>>>>
>>>> It could be, I hear, that the fuel they used was bad and that made the
>>>> engnine and the electrical generating engines stop. That could make the
>>>> vendor of the fuel liable, unless maybe he took the standard amount of
>>>> care but someone else not related to the fuel vendor intentionally
>>>> damaged the fuel.   Or it could be the fuel wholesaler or producer made
>>>> bad fuel that fouled the engines.
>>>>
>>>> It could be that none of those parties were negligent but it turns out
>>>> the electical generating engines fail at a certain age, and it was that
>>>> old but they buyers weren't warned.   The maker of the engines might
>>>> have known they fail at that age and not warned the buyers, or maybe he
>>>> didn't know this.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure there are other things that could have caused this.
>>>>
>>>> It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the scene,
>>>> if someone was at fault and if so, who it was.
>>>
>>> Whoever made the decisions to not properly maintain the essential
>>> equipment needed to control the ships motion?
>>>
>>
>> I have seen no reason to conclude that was the cause.
>>
>> "It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the
>> scene, if someone was at fault and if so, who it was."
>
>
> There was something in the news recently about this particular ship
> having had propuldion issues in the past - like back in June. The Dali
> passed a June 2023 inspection in Chile. A faulty pressure gauge for
> the fuel heaters was identified but fixed before the vessel left the
> port.
>
>
> The 9-year-old Dali was also detained by port officials in San
> Antonio, Chile last June after inspectors discovered a problem related
> to the vessel's "propulsion and auxiliary machinery," according toThe
> Washington Post, which cited records from the intergovernmental
> shipping regulator Tokyo MOU.
>
> The ship's owner, Grace Ocean Private Ltd., and operator, Synergy
> Marine, "have been sued at least four times in U.S. federal court on
> allegations of negligence and other claims tied to worker injuries on
> other ships owned and operated by the Singapore-based companies,"
> according toThe Associated Press.
>
> Maersk was also sanctioned last year by the U.S. Labor Department for
> allegedly stopping employees from reporting safety concerns, documents
> published by The Lever revealed.
>

So are you agreeing that "whoever made the decisions to not properly
maintain the essential equipment needed to control the ships motion" is
responsible?

If so, from what can you conclude that for this ship in this instance?

IMHO the best wisdom is from micky: "it's not clear from afar, and it's
not even clear to those on the scene, if someone was at fault and if so,
who it was."

=================================
micky previously posted
https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/03/28/key-bridge-collapse-timeline/

😎 Mighty Wannabe ✅ <@.> wrote:
> Clare Snyder wrote on 4/5/2024 12:24 AM:
>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 23:03:30 -0600, bud-- <null@void.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/3/2024 9:13 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2024 8:06 PM, micky wrote:
>>>>> In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 3 Apr 2024 22:28:36 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
>>>>> ? <@.> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob F wrote on 4/3/2024 9:58 PM:
>>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 6:30 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ed P wrote on 4/3/2024 9:05 PM:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 8:31 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Bob F wrote on 4/3/2024 7:59 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> micky wrote on 4/3/2024 9:46 AM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can't find the thread about the Key Bridge being knocked down in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baltimore, but wanted to comment on the racist pigs around the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> USA who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> claimed it had something to do with seeking diversity in who the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shipping company hires.   What nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you notice that the news kept mentioning the "pilot" instead
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the "captain"? The captain didn't hit the Baltimore Key
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bridge. The "pilot" who was working for Baltimore was steering
>>>>>>>>>>>> the ship, not the captain. The pilot was hired to do just that,
>>>>>>>>>>>> because the pilot knows the water channel like the back of his
>>>>>>>>>>>> hand. The pilot knows where the ship should avoid so that it
>>>>>>>>>>>> won't run aground.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Baltimore authorities cannot sue the captain of the ship or owner
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the ship, because the "pilot" who was steering the ship worked
>>>>>>>>>>>> for Baltimore.
>>>>>>>>>>> The pilot did not hit the bridge, the ship hit the bridge, after
>>>>>>>>>>> it's power systems failed. You actually think that was the pilots
>>>>>>>>>>> fault?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How would you like to have been the second pilot, who was there
>>>>>>>>>>> being trained?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Baltimore's pilot was at the helm. Good luck blaming anyone
>>>>>>>>>> else for the accident. The US will have to pick up the tab for
>>>>>>>>>> third party liability (people hurt/killed as a result of the bridge
>>>>>>>>>> collapse) and property damage (the bridge and the vehicles that
>>>>>>>>>> fell into the water).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How We Steer A Cargo Ship
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T-wFfPm37U
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He was at the helm, but the helm did not work.  Can't pin that on
>>>>>>>>> him.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nice video.  Did you notice in the last minute that the engines were
>>>>>>>>> running and making power?  The ship that hit the bridge did not have
>>>>>>>>> that luxury.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Baltimore's pilot was at the helm. He might have accidentally killed
>>>>>>>> the power by pushing the wrong button.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you Rod Speed??? You certainly have his stupid know it all
>>>>>>> attitude.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I merely put forward the best, unbiased analysis of what caused the
>>>>>> accident.
>>>>> Might be unbiased, but definitely not the best analysis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other have answered pretty well but since you replied first to my post,
>>>>> I will take the bait.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I were driving a Ford with 1000 miles on it, and the rack and pinion
>>>>> locked up so that I coudlnt' steer it, do you think I would be liable
>>>>> for the damages that followed or Ford would?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the same here.  Assuming the engine could have been turned off, and
>>>>> that the pilot had the power to do that, and he did it, that would make
>>>>> the pilot and his employer liable. But you have to prove that by a
>>>>> preponderance of the evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> It could also be that the owner of the ship didn't maintain the engines
>>>>> properly and that caused the engines to stop.  That would make the owner
>>>>> liable.
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be, I hear, that the fuel they used was bad and that made the
>>>>> engnine and the electrical generating engines stop. That could make the
>>>>> vendor of the fuel liable, unless maybe he took the standard amount of
>>>>> care but someone else not related to the fuel vendor intentionally
>>>>> damaged the fuel.   Or it could be the fuel wholesaler or producer made
>>>>> bad fuel that fouled the engines.
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be that none of those parties were negligent but it turns out
>>>>> the electical generating engines fail at a certain age, and it was that
>>>>> old but they buyers weren't warned.   The maker of the engines might
>>>>> have known they fail at that age and not warned the buyers, or maybe he
>>>>> didn't know this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure there are other things that could have caused this.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the scene,
>>>>> if someone was at fault and if so, who it was.
>>>> Whoever made the decisions to not properly maintain the essential
>>>> equipment needed to control the ships motion?
>>>>
>>> I have seen no reason to conclude that was the cause.
>>>
>>> "It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the
>>> scene, if someone was at fault and if so, who it was."
>>
>> There was something in the news recently about this particular ship
>> having had propuldion issues in the past - like back in June. The Dali
>> passed a June 2023 inspection in Chile. A faulty pressure gauge for
>> the fuel heaters was identified but fixed before the vessel left the
>> port.
>>
>>
>> The 9-year-old Dali was also detained by port officials in San
>> Antonio, Chile last June after inspectors discovered a problem related
>> to the vessel's "propulsion and auxiliary machinery," according toThe
>> Washington Post, which cited records from the intergovernmental
>> shipping regulator Tokyo MOU.
>>
>> The ship's owner, Grace Ocean Private Ltd., and operator, Synergy
>> Marine, "have been sued at least four times in U.S. federal court on
>> allegations of negligence and other claims tied to worker injuries on
>> other ships owned and operated by the Singapore-based companies,"
>> according toThe Associated Press.
>
> Worker injuries in other ships have nothing to do with the Baltimore
> harbour pilots running the ship into the bridge.
>
Point of note, the pilot was in charge of a ship that had lost propulsion
and, therefore, control of the helm. Put simply, the pilot had little
recourse but to watch and wait while the wind, tide and river currents had
their way with the direction the ship was heading. The pilot was entirely
dependent upon the ships engineer rectifying the issue and restarting the
engine(s).

micky wrote:
> In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 3 Apr 2024 23:36:44 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
> ? <@.> wrote:
>
>>> It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the scene,
>>> if someone was at fault and if so, who it was.
>>
>> You keep trying to make excuses for the Baltimore harbour pilots when
>> their human error is the most likely culprit of this disaster.
>>
> I'm not making excuses for Baltiomre pilots. I'm saying you don't know
> a darn thing about how the law works. You show that over and over
> again.

Blame it on Trump.
Maybe Cassidy Hutchinson will testify Trump lunged at the wheel in an attempt to drive the ship to the Capitol?

On 4/4/2024 11:36 PM, bud-- wrote:
> On 4/4/2024 10:24 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 23:03:30 -0600, bud-- <null@void.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/3/2024 9:13 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2024 8:06 PM, micky wrote:
>>>>> In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 3 Apr 2024 22:28:36 -0400, ? Mighty
>>>>> Wannabe
>>>>> ? <@.> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob F wrote on 4/3/2024 9:58 PM:
>>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 6:30 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ed P wrote on 4/3/2024 9:05 PM:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 8:31 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Bob F wrote on 4/3/2024 7:59 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> micky wrote on 4/3/2024 9:46 AM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can't find the thread about the Key Bridge being knocked
>>>>>>>>>>>>> down in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baltimore, but wanted to comment on the racist pigs around the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> USA who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> claimed it had something to do with seeking diversity in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shipping company hires.   What nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you notice that the news kept mentioning the "pilot"
>>>>>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the "captain"? The captain didn't hit the Baltimore Key
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bridge. The "pilot" who was working for Baltimore was steering
>>>>>>>>>>>> the ship, not the captain. The pilot was hired to do just that,
>>>>>>>>>>>> because the pilot knows the water channel like the back of his
>>>>>>>>>>>> hand. The pilot knows where the ship should avoid so that it
>>>>>>>>>>>> won't run aground.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Baltimore authorities cannot sue the captain of the ship or
>>>>>>>>>>>> owner
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the ship, because the "pilot" who was steering the ship
>>>>>>>>>>>> worked
>>>>>>>>>>>> for Baltimore.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The pilot did not hit the bridge, the ship hit the bridge, after
>>>>>>>>>>> it's power systems failed. You actually think that was the
>>>>>>>>>>> pilots
>>>>>>>>>>> fault?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How would you like to have been the second pilot, who was there
>>>>>>>>>>> being trained?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Baltimore's pilot was at the helm. Good luck blaming anyone
>>>>>>>>>> else for the accident. The US will have to pick up the tab for
>>>>>>>>>> third party liability (people hurt/killed as a result of the
>>>>>>>>>> bridge
>>>>>>>>>> collapse) and property damage (the bridge and the vehicles that
>>>>>>>>>> fell into the water).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How We Steer A Cargo Ship
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T-wFfPm37U
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He was at the helm, but the helm did not work.  Can't pin that on
>>>>>>>>> him.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nice video.  Did you notice in the last minute that the engines
>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>> running and making power?  The ship that hit the bridge did not
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> that luxury.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Baltimore's pilot was at the helm. He might have accidentally
>>>>>>>> killed
>>>>>>>> the power by pushing the wrong button.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you Rod Speed??? You certainly have his stupid know it all
>>>>>>> attitude.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I merely put forward the best, unbiased analysis of what caused the
>>>>>> accident.
>>>>>
>>>>> Might be unbiased, but definitely not the best analysis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other have answered pretty well but since you replied first to my
>>>>> post,
>>>>> I will take the bait.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I were driving a Ford with 1000 miles on it, and the rack and
>>>>> pinion
>>>>> locked up so that I coudlnt' steer it, do you think I would be liable
>>>>> for the damages that followed or Ford would?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the same here.  Assuming the engine could have been turned
>>>>> off, and
>>>>> that the pilot had the power to do that, and he did it, that would
>>>>> make
>>>>> the pilot and his employer liable. But you have to prove that by a
>>>>> preponderance of the evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> It could also be that the owner of the ship didn't maintain the
>>>>> engines
>>>>> properly and that caused the engines to stop.  That would make the
>>>>> owner
>>>>> liable.
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be, I hear, that the fuel they used was bad and that made the
>>>>> engnine and the electrical generating engines stop. That could make
>>>>> the
>>>>> vendor of the fuel liable, unless maybe he took the standard amount of
>>>>> care but someone else not related to the fuel vendor intentionally
>>>>> damaged the fuel.   Or it could be the fuel wholesaler or producer
>>>>> made
>>>>> bad fuel that fouled the engines.
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be that none of those parties were negligent but it turns out
>>>>> the electical generating engines fail at a certain age, and it was
>>>>> that
>>>>> old but they buyers weren't warned.   The maker of the engines might
>>>>> have known they fail at that age and not warned the buyers, or
>>>>> maybe he
>>>>> didn't know this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure there are other things that could have caused this.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the
>>>>> scene,
>>>>> if someone was at fault and if so, who it was.
>>>>
>>>> Whoever made the decisions to not properly maintain the essential
>>>> equipment needed to control the ships motion?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have seen no reason to conclude that was the cause.
>>>
>>> "It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the
>>> scene, if someone was at fault and if so, who it was."
>>
>>
>>   There was something in the news recently about this particular ship
>> having had propuldion issues in the past - like back in June. The Dali
>> passed a June 2023 inspection in Chile. A faulty pressure gauge for
>> the fuel heaters was identified but fixed before the vessel left the
>> port.
>>
>>
>> The 9-year-old Dali was also detained by port officials in San
>> Antonio, Chile last June after inspectors discovered a problem related
>> to the vessel's "propulsion and auxiliary machinery," according toThe
>> Washington Post, which cited records from the intergovernmental
>> shipping regulator Tokyo MOU.
>>
>> The ship's owner, Grace Ocean Private Ltd., and operator, Synergy
>> Marine, "have been sued at least four times in U.S. federal court on
>> allegations of negligence and other claims tied to worker injuries on
>> other ships owned and operated by the Singapore-based companies,"
>> according toThe Associated Press.
>>
>> Maersk was also sanctioned last year by the U.S. Labor Department for
>> allegedly stopping employees from reporting safety concerns, documents
>> published by The Lever revealed.
>>
>
> So are you agreeing that "whoever made the decisions to not properly
> maintain the essential equipment needed to control the ships motion" is
> responsible?
>
> If so, from what can you conclude that for this ship in this instance?
>
> IMHO the best wisdom is from micky: "it's not clear from afar, and it's
> not even clear to those on the scene, if someone was at fault and if so,
> who it was."
>
> =================================
> micky previously posted
> https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/03/28/key-bridge-collapse-timeline/
>
> Tugs were used for leaving the dock.
>
> There were 4 or 5 minutes from losing power to crash - not enough time
> to do much of anything. Surprised they could close the bridge in both
> directions that fast.

On 4/3/2024 8:36 PM, 😎 Mighty Wannabe ✅ wrote:
> micky wrote on 4/3/2024 11:06 PM:
>> In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 3 Apr 2024 22:28:36 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
>> ? <@.> wrote:
>>
>>> Bob F wrote on 4/3/2024 9:58 PM:
>>>> On 4/3/2024 6:30 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>> Ed P wrote on 4/3/2024 9:05 PM:
>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 8:31 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>> Bob F wrote on 4/3/2024 7:59 PM:
>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>>>> micky wrote on 4/3/2024 9:46 AM:
>>>>>>>>>> Can't find the thread about the Key Bridge being knocked down in
>>>>>>>>>> Baltimore, but wanted to comment on the racist pigs around the
>>>>>>>>>> USA who
>>>>>>>>>> claimed it had something to do with seeking diversity in who the
>>>>>>>>>> shipping company hires.   What nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did you notice that the news kept mentioning the "pilot" instead
>>>>>>>>> of the "captain"? The captain didn't hit the Baltimore Key
>>>>>>>>> Bridge. The "pilot" who was working for Baltimore was steering
>>>>>>>>> the ship, not the captain. The pilot was hired to do just that,
>>>>>>>>> because the pilot knows the water channel like the back of his
>>>>>>>>> hand. The pilot knows where the ship should avoid so that it
>>>>>>>>> won't run aground.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Baltimore authorities cannot sue the captain of the ship or owner
>>>>>>>>> of the ship, because the "pilot" who was steering the ship worked
>>>>>>>>> for Baltimore.
>>>>>>>> The pilot did not hit the bridge, the ship hit the bridge, after
>>>>>>>> it's power systems failed. You actually think that was the pilots
>>>>>>>> fault?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How would you like to have been the second pilot, who was there
>>>>>>>> being trained?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Baltimore's pilot was at the helm. Good luck blaming anyone
>>>>>>> else for the accident. The US will have to pick up the tab for
>>>>>>> third party liability (people hurt/killed as a result of the bridge
>>>>>>> collapse) and property damage (the bridge and the vehicles that
>>>>>>> fell into the water).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How We Steer A Cargo Ship
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T-wFfPm37U
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> He was at the helm, but the helm did not work.  Can't pin that on
>>>>>> him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice video.  Did you notice in the last minute that the engines were
>>>>>> running and making power?  The ship that hit the bridge did not have
>>>>>> that luxury.
>>>>>
>>>>> Baltimore's pilot was at the helm. He might have accidentally killed
>>>>> the power by pushing the wrong button.
>>>>>
>>>> Are you Rod Speed??? You certainly have his stupid know it all
>>>> attitude.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I merely put forward the best, unbiased analysis of what caused the
>>> accident.
>> Might be unbiased, but definitely not the best analysis.
>>
>> Other have answered pretty well but since you replied first to my post,
>> I will take the bait.
>>
>> If I were driving a Ford with 1000 miles on it, and the rack and pinion
>> locked up so that I coudlnt' steer it, do you think I would be liable
>> for the damages that followed or Ford would?
>
> You were driving your own car. How's that relevant to the case of the
> Baltimore harbour pilots at the helm of a strange (or not so familiar)
> ship?
>
>
>> It's the same here.  Assuming the engine could have been turned off, and
>> that the pilot had the power to do that, and he did it, that would make
>> the pilot and his employer liable. But you have to prove that by a
>> preponderance of the evidence.
>
> I think there is a black box in ships like that. I think they got the
> hold of the black box.
>
> https://www.businessinsider.com/baltimore-bridge-collapse-cargo-ship-black-box-recovered-2024-3
>
>> It could also be that the owner of the ship didn't maintain the engines
>> properly and that caused the engines to stop.  That would make the owner
>> liable.
>
> It worked fine all over the world until the Baltimore harbour pilots
> took over the helm. I'd blame the pilots first.
>
>
>> It could be, I hear, that the fuel they used was bad and that made the
>> engnine and the electrical generating engines stop. That could make the
>> vendor of the fuel liable, unless maybe he took the standard amount of
>> care but someone else not related to the fuel vendor intentionally
>> damaged the fuel.   Or it could be the fuel wholesaler or producer made
>> bad fuel that fouled the engines.
>
> Bad fuel won't make the power go out and come back on.
>
>
>> It could be that none of those parties were negligent but it turns out
>> the electical generating engines fail at a certain age, and it was that
>> old but they buyers weren't warned.   The maker of the engines might
>> have known they fail at that age and not warned the buyers, or maybe he
>> didn't know this.
>
> This does not explain why the power went out and came back on.
>
>> I'm sure there are other things that could have caused this.
>
> Fat finger pushing the wrong button?

The pilot never touches any buttons, other than perhaps the switch on a
microphone.

>
>
>>
>> It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the scene,
>> if someone was at fault and if so, who it was.
>
>
> You keep trying to make excuses for the Baltimore harbour pilots when
> their human error is the most likely culprit of this disaster.

You keep blaming the pilot, without an ounce of evidence or any
reasonable way a pilot could have caused the power failure(s).

When the reports are made, equipment failure will most likely be the
cause, and the pilot is highly unlikely to be held responsible, since
there is nothing a pilot could do to cause equipment failures. Some form
of poor maintenance will likely be cited as the cause, with crew
operational mistakes being the most likely alternative.

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 5 Apr 2024 00:57:57 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
? <@.> wrote:

>micky wrote on 4/4/2024 8:11 PM:
>> In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 3 Apr 2024 23:36:44 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
>> ? <@.> wrote:
>>
>>>> It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the scene,
>>>> if someone was at fault and if so, who it was.
>>>
>>> You keep trying to make excuses for the Baltimore harbour pilots when
>>> their human error is the most likely culprit of this disaster.
>>>
>> I'm not making excuses for Baltiomre pilots. I'm saying you don't know
>> a darn thing about how the law works. You show that over and over
>> again.
>
>You are definitely making excuses for Baltimore pilots. You have the
>attitude of "my boys can do no wrong" and try to blame everything but
>the Baltimore pilots running the ship into the bridge.

You're funny. And you also forgot that the power failed on the boat.
You try steering a ship wihtout any power.
>
>

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 5 Apr 2024 00:43:44 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
? <@.> wrote:

>micky wrote on 4/4/2024 10:06 PM:
>> In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:52:10 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
>> ? <@.> wrote:
>>
>>> Ed P wrote on 4/4/2024 8:58 AM:
>>>> On 4/4/2024 6:18 AM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>> rbowman wrote on 4/4/2024 1:23 AM:
>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 23:52:58 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The container ship was fine sailing the seven seas until the Baltimore
>>>>>>> harbour pilots laid their hands on it.
>>>>>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2024/03/26/baltimore-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> bridge-collapse-ship-dali/73105394007/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The ship in Tuesday's crash, Dali, was involved in at least one prior
>>>>>> accident when it collided with a shipping pier in Belgium.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That 2016 incident occurred as the Dali was leaving port in Antwerp and
>>>>>> struck a loading pier made of stone, causing damage to the ship’s
>>>>>> stern,
>>>>>> according to VesselFinder.com, a site that tracks ships across the
>>>>>> world.
>>>>>> An investigation determined a mistake made by the ship’s master and
>>>>>> pilot
>>>>>> was to blame.
>>>>> Another pilot mistake. Belgium also hires "Homer Simpson"-type of
>>>>> pilots. The "stern" of a ship is the rear-end of the ship. Apparently
>>>>> the pilot put the ship in reverse by mistake and rear-ended ship
>>>>> against the pier.
>>>>>
>>>> Apparently you are wrong again.  Do you know how ships steer? Unlike a
>>>> car, it is the the back, not the front.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A ship's propeller can spin
>>> backward, just like your car tire can spin backward when in reverse
>>> gear. Are you really that dumb, or merely trying to drive up your number
>>> of posts to catch up to Peeler's?
>> Ad hominems don't help your image. Or convince anyone, since everyone
>> here knows that Ed is not dumb at all.
>>
>> And how come you replied to Ed's post twice and each time you snipped
>> the link he gave which contradicted your theory, portrayed as apparent,
>> that the "pilot put the ship in reverse by mistake and rear-ended ship
>> against the pier". That's not what the link Ed posted said. is that why
>> you snipped it?
>>
>> Here it is again:
>> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/26/baltimore-bridge-ship-previous-collision-antwerp-2016
>>
>
>What has the ship's previous collision got to do with this collision?
>The ship was under the control of harbour pilots in previous collision.
>
You were talking about the previous collision when you said that..

Bowman said:
>> That 2016 incident occurred as the Dali was leaving port in Antwerp and
>> struck a loading pier made of stone, causing damage to the ship’s stern,
>> according to VesselFinder.com, a site that tracks ships across the world.
>> An investigation determined a mistake made by the ship’s master and pilot
>> was to blame.
And you said:
> Another pilot mistake. Belgium also hires "Homer Simpson"-type of
> pilots. The "stern" of a ship is the rear-end of the ship. Apparently
> the pilot put the ship in reverse by mistake and rear-ended ship against
> the pier.

But the link you snipped contradicted you.

On 4/5/2024 4:48 AM, Bob F wrote:
> On 4/3/2024 8:36 PM, 😎 Mighty Wannabe ✅ wrote:
>> micky wrote on 4/3/2024 11:06 PM:
>>> In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 3 Apr 2024 22:28:36 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
>>> ? <@.> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob F wrote on 4/3/2024 9:58 PM:
>>>>> On 4/3/2024 6:30 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>> Ed P wrote on 4/3/2024 9:05 PM:
>>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 8:31 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bob F wrote on 4/3/2024 7:59 PM:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> micky wrote on 4/3/2024 9:46 AM:
>>>>>>>>>>> Can't find the thread about the Key Bridge being knocked down in
>>>>>>>>>>> Baltimore, but wanted to comment on the racist pigs around the
>>>>>>>>>>> USA who
>>>>>>>>>>> claimed it had something to do with seeking diversity in who the
>>>>>>>>>>> shipping company hires.   What nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Did you notice that the news kept mentioning the "pilot" instead
>>>>>>>>>> of the "captain"? The captain didn't hit the Baltimore Key
>>>>>>>>>> Bridge. The "pilot" who was working for Baltimore was steering
>>>>>>>>>> the ship, not the captain. The pilot was hired to do just that,
>>>>>>>>>> because the pilot knows the water channel like the back of his
>>>>>>>>>> hand. The pilot knows where the ship should avoid so that it
>>>>>>>>>> won't run aground.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Baltimore authorities cannot sue the captain of the ship or owner
>>>>>>>>>> of the ship, because the "pilot" who was steering the ship worked
>>>>>>>>>> for Baltimore.
>>>>>>>>> The pilot did not hit the bridge, the ship hit the bridge, after
>>>>>>>>> it's power systems failed. You actually think that was the pilots
>>>>>>>>> fault?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How would you like to have been the second pilot, who was there
>>>>>>>>> being trained?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Baltimore's pilot was at the helm. Good luck blaming anyone
>>>>>>>> else for the accident. The US will have to pick up the tab for
>>>>>>>> third party liability (people hurt/killed as a result of the bridge
>>>>>>>> collapse) and property damage (the bridge and the vehicles that
>>>>>>>> fell into the water).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How We Steer A Cargo Ship
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T-wFfPm37U
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He was at the helm, but the helm did not work.  Can't pin that on
>>>>>>> him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nice video.  Did you notice in the last minute that the engines were
>>>>>>> running and making power?  The ship that hit the bridge did not have
>>>>>>> that luxury.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Baltimore's pilot was at the helm. He might have accidentally killed
>>>>>> the power by pushing the wrong button.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Are you Rod Speed??? You certainly have his stupid know it all
>>>>> attitude.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I merely put forward the best, unbiased analysis of what caused the
>>>> accident.
>>> Might be unbiased, but definitely not the best analysis.
>>>
>>> Other have answered pretty well but since you replied first to my post,
>>> I will take the bait.
>>>
>>> If I were driving a Ford with 1000 miles on it, and the rack and pinion
>>> locked up so that I coudlnt' steer it, do you think I would be liable
>>> for the damages that followed or Ford would?
>>
>> You were driving your own car. How's that relevant to the case of the
>> Baltimore harbour pilots at the helm of a strange (or not so familiar)
>> ship?
>>
>>
>>> It's the same here.  Assuming the engine could have been turned off, and
>>> that the pilot had the power to do that, and he did it, that would make
>>> the pilot and his employer liable. But you have to prove that by a
>>> preponderance of the evidence.
>>
>> I think there is a black box in ships like that. I think they got the
>> hold of the black box.
>>
>> https://www.businessinsider.com/baltimore-bridge-collapse-cargo-ship-black-box-recovered-2024-3
>>
>>> It could also be that the owner of the ship didn't maintain the engines
>>> properly and that caused the engines to stop.  That would make the owner
>>> liable.
>>
>> It worked fine all over the world until the Baltimore harbour pilots
>> took over the helm. I'd blame the pilots first.
>>
>>
>>> It could be, I hear, that the fuel they used was bad and that made the
>>> engnine and the electrical generating engines stop. That could make the
>>> vendor of the fuel liable, unless maybe he took the standard amount of
>>> care but someone else not related to the fuel vendor intentionally
>>> damaged the fuel.   Or it could be the fuel wholesaler or producer made
>>> bad fuel that fouled the engines.
>>
>> Bad fuel won't make the power go out and come back on.
>>
>>
>>> It could be that none of those parties were negligent but it turns out
>>> the electical generating engines fail at a certain age, and it was that
>>> old but they buyers weren't warned.   The maker of the engines might
>>> have known they fail at that age and not warned the buyers, or maybe he
>>> didn't know this.
>>
>> This does not explain why the power went out and came back on.
>>
>>> I'm sure there are other things that could have caused this.
>>
>> Fat finger pushing the wrong button?
>
> The pilot never touches any buttons, other than perhaps the switch on a
> microphone.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the scene,
>>> if someone was at fault and if so, who it was.
>>
>>
>> You keep trying to make excuses for the Baltimore harbour pilots when
>> their human error is the most likely culprit of this disaster.
>
> You keep blaming the pilot, without an ounce of evidence or any
> reasonable way a pilot could have caused the power failure(s).
>
> When the reports are made, equipment failure will most likely be the
> cause, and the pilot is highly unlikely to be held responsible, since
> there is nothing a pilot could do to cause equipment failures. Some form
> of poor maintenance will likely be cited as the cause, with crew
> operational mistakes being the most likely alternative.
>

"There were two ship pilots aboard the ship as it left its berth in the
Port of Baltimore. Can you tell us what ship pilots do?

Post: Ship pilots are brought on board in what are considered restricted
maneuverability or navigation areas. They are local experts who are
usually certified by the state or federal government to provide advice
to the master of the vessel as to how to control the vessel, safely and
adequately, through the pilotage waters, which in this case would be
down the river from the Port of Baltimore.

Pilots are well practiced in close-quarters maneuvering, especially with
tugboats and docking the vessel alongside the assigned berth.

But a pilot doesn’t come aboard the ship and take control of it, do they?

Post: They are just advisers to the captain, who is known as the
“master.” The master still has full responsibility for the safe
navigation of the vessel. So the pilot will meet the ship out at sea or
at the dock if it’s in port and leaving to go to sea. They proceed up to
the bridge. Usually they exchange greetings, and usually a little bit of
ship’s swag is given, either a hat or something else, or at least a cup
of coffee.

micky wrote on 4/5/2024 7:55 AM:
> In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 5 Apr 2024 00:43:44 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
> ? <@.> wrote:
>
>> micky wrote on 4/4/2024 10:06 PM:
>>> In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:52:10 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
>>> ? <@.> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ed P wrote on 4/4/2024 8:58 AM:
>>>>> On 4/4/2024 6:18 AM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>> rbowman wrote on 4/4/2024 1:23 AM:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 23:52:58 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The container ship was fine sailing the seven seas until the Baltimore
>>>>>>>> harbour pilots laid their hands on it.
>>>>>>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2024/03/26/baltimore-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bridge-collapse-ship-dali/73105394007/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The ship in Tuesday's crash, Dali, was involved in at least one prior
>>>>>>> accident when it collided with a shipping pier in Belgium.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That 2016 incident occurred as the Dali was leaving port in Antwerp and
>>>>>>> struck a loading pier made of stone, causing damage to the ship’s
>>>>>>> stern,
>>>>>>> according to VesselFinder.com, a site that tracks ships across the
>>>>>>> world.
>>>>>>> An investigation determined a mistake made by the ship’s master and
>>>>>>> pilot
>>>>>>> was to blame.
>>>>>> Another pilot mistake. Belgium also hires "Homer Simpson"-type of
>>>>>> pilots. The "stern" of a ship is the rear-end of the ship. Apparently
>>>>>> the pilot put the ship in reverse by mistake and rear-ended ship
>>>>>> against the pier.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently you are wrong again.  Do you know how ships steer? Unlike a
>>>>> car, it is the the back, not the front.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A ship's propeller can spin
>>>> backward, just like your car tire can spin backward when in reverse
>>>> gear. Are you really that dumb, or merely trying to drive up your number
>>>> of posts to catch up to Peeler's?
>>> Ad hominems don't help your image. Or convince anyone, since everyone
>>> here knows that Ed is not dumb at all.
>>>
>>> And how come you replied to Ed's post twice and each time you snipped
>>> the link he gave which contradicted your theory, portrayed as apparent,
>>> that the "pilot put the ship in reverse by mistake and rear-ended ship
>>> against the pier". That's not what the link Ed posted said. is that why
>>> you snipped it?
>>>
>>> Here it is again:
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/26/baltimore-bridge-ship-previous-collision-antwerp-2016
>>>
>> What has the ship's previous collision got to do with this collision?
>> The ship was under the control of harbour pilots in previous collision.
>>
> You were talking about the previous collision when you said that..
>
> Bowman said:
>>> That 2016 incident occurred as the Dali was leaving port in Antwerp and
>>> struck a loading pier made of stone, causing damage to the ship’s stern,
>>> according to VesselFinder.com, a site that tracks ships across the world.
>>> An investigation determined a mistake made by the ship’s master and pilot
>>> was to blame.
> And you said:
>> Another pilot mistake. Belgium also hires "Homer Simpson"-type of
>> pilots. The "stern" of a ship is the rear-end of the ship. Apparently
>> the pilot put the ship in reverse by mistake and rear-ended ship against
>> the pier.
> But the link you snipped contradicted you.

It did not contradict me. Here I quote from rbowman's link:

"Under maritime law, all foreign flagged vessels must be piloted into
state ports by a state licensed pilot so the Dali's pilot is licensed
byAssociation of Maryland Pilots."

There is one thing very sinister about the aftermath of this incident.
The Baltimore port authority was digging into all the details about the
history of the ship, trying to pin blame on the ship, the ship owner, or
the ship owner's parent company, but the Baltimore port authorities has
never made any mention of the identities of the two pilots who were in
charge of steering the ship through the water channel, their training,
and the years of services. Don't you think it is odd? You'd think big
boo-boo of this magnitude, the press would delve into the detail of the
two pilots, and the public should know.

Please mark my word. I suspect the Baltimore port authority is
deliberately hiding something. The truth they want to hide is that the
two pilots who ultimately should be responsible for steering the ship
into the bridge are very likely new hires who hardly had, if any,
previous experience in piloting before this accident. The two pilots
might even be "extreme DEI hires": both might be young, black, female
and gay.  ThinkKarine Jean-Pierre with pink and purple hair.

On 5/4/2024 11:39 pm, 😎 Mighty Wannabe ✅ wrote:
> micky wrote on 4/5/2024 7:55 AM:
>> In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 5 Apr 2024 00:43:44 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
>> ? <@.> wrote:
>>
>>> micky wrote on 4/4/2024 10:06 PM:
>>>> In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:52:10 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
>>>> ? <@.> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ed P wrote on 4/4/2024 8:58 AM:
>>>>>> On 4/4/2024 6:18 AM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>> rbowman wrote on 4/4/2024 1:23 AM:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 23:52:58 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The container ship was fine sailing the seven seas until the
>>>>>>>>> Baltimore
>>>>>>>>> harbour pilots laid their hands on it.
>>>>>>>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2024/03/26/baltimore-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bridge-collapse-ship-dali/73105394007/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The ship in Tuesday's crash, Dali, was involved in at least one
>>>>>>>> prior
>>>>>>>> accident when it collided with a shipping pier in Belgium.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That 2016 incident occurred as the Dali was leaving port in
>>>>>>>> Antwerp and
>>>>>>>> struck a loading pier made of stone, causing damage to the ship’s
>>>>>>>> stern,
>>>>>>>> according to VesselFinder.com, a site that tracks ships across the
>>>>>>>> world.
>>>>>>>> An investigation determined a mistake made by the ship’s master and
>>>>>>>> pilot
>>>>>>>> was to blame.
>>>>>>> Another pilot mistake. Belgium also hires "Homer Simpson"-type of
>>>>>>> pilots. The "stern" of a ship is the rear-end of the ship.
>>>>>>> Apparently
>>>>>>> the pilot put the ship in reverse by mistake and rear-ended ship
>>>>>>> against the pier.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently you are wrong again.  Do you know how ships steer?
>>>>>> Unlike a
>>>>>> car, it is the the back, not the front.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A ship's propeller can spin
>>>>> backward, just like your car tire can spin backward when in reverse
>>>>> gear. Are you really that dumb, or merely trying to drive up your
>>>>> number
>>>>> of posts to catch up to Peeler's?
>>>> Ad hominems don't help your image.   Or convince anyone, since everyone
>>>> here knows that Ed is not dumb at all.
>>>>
>>>> And how come you replied to Ed's post twice and each time you snipped
>>>> the link he gave which contradicted your theory, portrayed as apparent,
>>>> that the "pilot put the ship in reverse by mistake and rear-ended ship
>>>> against the pier". That's not what the link Ed posted said.  is that
>>>> why
>>>> you snipped it?
>>>> Here it is again:
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/26/baltimore-bridge-ship-previous-collision-antwerp-2016
>>>>
>>> What has the ship's previous collision got to do with this collision?
>>> The ship was under the control of harbour pilots in previous collision.
>>>
>> You were talking about the previous collision  when you said that..
>>
>> Bowman said:
>>>> That 2016 incident occurred as the Dali was leaving port in Antwerp and
>>>> struck a loading pier made of stone, causing damage to the ship’s
>>>> stern,
>>>> according to VesselFinder.com, a site that tracks ships across the
>>>> world.
>>>> An investigation determined a mistake made by the ship’s master
>>>> and pilot
>>>> was to blame.
>> And you said:
>>> Another pilot mistake. Belgium also hires "Homer Simpson"-type of
>>> pilots. The "stern" of a ship is the rear-end of the ship. Apparently
>>> the pilot put the ship in reverse by mistake and rear-ended ship against
>>> the pier.
>> But the link you snipped contradicted you.
>
> It did not contradict me. Here I quote from rbowman's link:
>
> "Under maritime law, all foreign flagged vessels must be piloted into
> state ports by a state licensed pilot so the Dali's pilot is licensed
> byAssociation of Maryland Pilots."
>
> There is one thing very sinister about the aftermath of this incident.
> The Baltimore port authority was digging into all the details about the
> history of the ship, trying to pin blame on the ship, the ship owner, or
> the ship owner's parent company, but the Baltimore port authorities has
> never made any mention of the identities of the two pilots who were in
> charge of steering the ship through the water channel, their training,
> and the years of services. Don't you think it is odd? You'd think big
> boo-boo of this magnitude, the press would delve into the detail of the
> two pilots, and the public should know.
>
> Please mark my word. I suspect the Baltimore port authority is
> deliberately hiding something. The truth they want to hide is that the
> two pilots who ultimately should be responsible for steering the ship
> into the bridge are very likely new hires who hardly had, if any,
> previous experience in piloting before this accident. The two pilots
> might even be "extreme DEI hires": both might be young, black, female
> and gay.  ThinkKarine Jean-Pierre with pink and purple hair.
>
The weird one here - is you!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

micky wrote on 4/5/2024 7:50 AM:
> In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 5 Apr 2024 00:57:57 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
> ? <@.> wrote:
>
>> micky wrote on 4/4/2024 8:11 PM:
>>> In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 3 Apr 2024 23:36:44 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
>>> ? <@.> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the scene,
>>>>> if someone was at fault and if so, who it was.
>>>> You keep trying to make excuses for the Baltimore harbour pilots when
>>>> their human error is the most likely culprit of this disaster.
>>>>
>>> I'm not making excuses for Baltiomre pilots. I'm saying you don't know
>>> a darn thing about how the law works. You show that over and over
>>> again.
>> You are definitely making excuses for Baltimore pilots. You have the
>> attitude of "my boys can do no wrong" and try to blame everything but
>> the Baltimore pilots running the ship into the bridge.
> You're funny. And you also forgot that the power failed on the boat.
> You try steering a ship wihtout any power.

I have posted about this to another poster. The two pilot might have hit
the wrong button and turned off the power.

The press mentioned the ship "throwing an anchor". My explanation is
that when the anchor hit the sea floor, the anchor chain would pull on
the ship. Since the anchor is attached to the bow of the ship, the
pulling force from the anchor chain would pull the ship to one side,
depending on which side the anchor came from. In this case, you can see
from the accident video that the ship suddenly jerked to the right hand
side (starboard side) and hit the bridge. But in one news article,
reportedly the pilot dropped the anchor on the "port" side. If this was
the case, the ship's bow should have jerked to the left side and avoided
hitting the bridge. Apparently the pilots couldn't tell which side of
the ship is called "port", and which side of the ship is called
"starboard", and dropped the anchor on the wrong side.

Skid Marks wrote on 4/5/2024 6:53 AM:
> micky wrote:
>> In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 3 Apr 2024 23:36:44 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
>> ? <@.> wrote:
>>
>>>> It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the
>>>> scene,
>>>> if someone was at fault and if so, who it was.
>>>
>>> You keep trying to make excuses for the Baltimore harbour pilots when
>>> their human error is the most likely culprit of this disaster.
>>>
>> I'm not making excuses for Baltiomre pilots.  I'm saying you don't know
>> a darn thing about how the law works.   You show that over and over
>> again.
>
> Blame it on Trump.
> Maybe Cassidy Hutchinson will testify Trump lunged at the wheel in an
> attempt to drive the ship to the Capitol?
>
>

It might be true. LOL

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 5 Apr 2024 08:56:01 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
? <@.> wrote:

>micky wrote on 4/5/2024 7:50 AM:
>> In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 5 Apr 2024 00:57:57 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
>> ? <@.> wrote:
>>
>>> micky wrote on 4/4/2024 8:11 PM:
>>>> In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 3 Apr 2024 23:36:44 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
>>>> ? <@.> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the scene,
>>>>>> if someone was at fault and if so, who it was.
>>>>> You keep trying to make excuses for the Baltimore harbour pilots when
>>>>> their human error is the most likely culprit of this disaster.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not making excuses for Baltiomre pilots. I'm saying you don't know
>>>> a darn thing about how the law works. You show that over and over
>>>> again.
>>> You are definitely making excuses for Baltimore pilots. You have the
>>> attitude of "my boys can do no wrong" and try to blame everything but
>>> the Baltimore pilots running the ship into the bridge.
>> You're funny. And you also forgot that the power failed on the boat.
>> You try steering a ship wihtout any power.
>
>I have posted about this to another poster. The two pilot might have hit
>the wrong button and turned off the power.
>
>The press mentioned the ship "throwing an anchor". My explanation is
>that when the anchor hit the sea floor, the anchor chain would pull on
>the ship. Since the anchor is attached to the bow of the ship, the
>pulling force from the anchor chain would pull the ship to one side,
>depending on which side the anchor came from. In this case, you can see
>from the accident video that the ship suddenly jerked to the right hand
>side (starboard side) and hit the bridge. But in one news article,
>reportedly the pilot dropped the anchor on the "port" side. If this was
>the case, the ship's bow should have jerked to the left side and avoided
>hitting the bridge. Apparently the pilots couldn't tell which side of
>the ship is called "port", and which side of the ship is called
>"starboard", and dropped the anchor on the wrong side.
>
Loads of things might have happened. The problems is that you have no
idea what happened and yet you write as if you do. No amount of
detailed speculation on your part changes that.

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 5 Apr 2024 08:57:29 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
? <@.> wrote:

>Skid Marks wrote on 4/5/2024 6:53 AM:
>> micky wrote:
>>> In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 3 Apr 2024 23:36:44 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
>>> ? <@.> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the
>>>>> scene,
>>>>> if someone was at fault and if so, who it was.
>>>>
>>>> You keep trying to make excuses for the Baltimore harbour pilots when
>>>> their human error is the most likely culprit of this disaster.
>>>>
>>> I'm not making excuses for Baltiomre pilots.  I'm saying you don't know
>>> a darn thing about how the law works.   You show that over and over
>>> again.
>>
>> Blame it on Trump.
>> Maybe Cassidy Hutchinson will testify Trump lunged at the wheel in an
>> attempt to drive the ship to the Capitol?

Of course she didn't testify to that. She testified that someone in the
car at the time told her that, and aiui he's never said otherwise.
>>
>
>It might be true. LOL
>
>

micky wrote on 4/5/2024 9:45 AM:
> In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 5 Apr 2024 08:56:01 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
> ? <@.> wrote:
>
>> micky wrote on 4/5/2024 7:50 AM:
>>> In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 5 Apr 2024 00:57:57 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
>>> ? <@.> wrote:
>>>
>>>> micky wrote on 4/4/2024 8:11 PM:
>>>>> In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 3 Apr 2024 23:36:44 -0400, ? Mighty Wannabe
>>>>> ? <@.> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not clear from afar, and it's not even clear to those on the scene,
>>>>>>> if someone was at fault and if so, who it was.
>>>>>> You keep trying to make excuses for the Baltimore harbour pilots when
>>>>>> their human error is the most likely culprit of this disaster.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not making excuses for Baltiomre pilots. I'm saying you don't know
>>>>> a darn thing about how the law works. You show that over and over
>>>>> again.
>>>> You are definitely making excuses for Baltimore pilots. You have the
>>>> attitude of "my boys can do no wrong" and try to blame everything but
>>>> the Baltimore pilots running the ship into the bridge.
>>> You're funny. And you also forgot that the power failed on the boat.
>>> You try steering a ship wihtout any power.
>> I have posted about this to another poster. The two pilot might have hit
>> the wrong button and turned off the power.
>>
>> The press mentioned the ship "throwing an anchor". My explanation is
>> that when the anchor hit the sea floor, the anchor chain would pull on
>> the ship. Since the anchor is attached to the bow of the ship, the
>> pulling force from the anchor chain would pull the ship to one side,
>> depending on which side the anchor came from. In this case, you can see from the accident video that the ship suddenly jerked to the right hand side (starboard side) and hit the bridge. But in one news article,
>> reportedly the pilot dropped the anchor on the "port" side. If this was
>> the case, the ship's bow should have jerked to the left side and avoided
>> hitting the bridge. Apparently the pilots couldn't tell which side of
>> the ship is called "port", and which side of the ship is called
>> "starboard", and dropped the anchor on the wrong side.
>>
> Loads of things might have happened. The problems is that you have no
> idea what happened and yet you write as if you do. No amount of
> detailed speculation on your part changes that.

You still have the "my boys can do no wrong" attitude. The harbour
pilots were in control of the ship. Steering the ship out of dangerous
waters is what they were there for. Their mistakes are the the most
likely culprit.

Here I repeat my previous reply to you:

There is one thing very sinister about the aftermath of this incident.
The Baltimore port authority was digging into all the details about the
history of the ship, trying to pin blame on the ship, the ship owner, or
the ship owner's parent company, but the Baltimore port authorities has
never made any mention of the identities of the two pilots who were in
charge of steering the ship through the water channel, their training,
and the years of services. Don't you think it is odd? You'd think big
boo-boo of this magnitude, the press would delve into the detail of the
two pilots, and the public should know.

Please mark my word. I suspect the Baltimore port authority is
deliberately hiding something. The truth they want to hide is that the
two pilots who ultimately should be responsible for steering the ship
into the bridge are very likely new hires who hardly had, if any,
previous experience in piloting before this accident. The two pilots
might even be "extreme DEI hires": both might be young, black, female
and gay.  ThinkKarine Jean-Pierre with pink and purple hair.