Great explanation. I know everyone wants to call it sabotage but weird accidents do happen. I have much more confidence in your analysis than many of the others I’ve read!
I'm nobody...but I completely agree with your explanation and in particular the influence of bank suction and the bad luck of "last rudder position" during power failure and the influence of the presence of the Curtiss Bay channel. Nice that you had the opportunity to experiment in a simulator.
"We need a full investigation of why the power went out and why it took so long for backup power to be restored."
That's for sure. And if we don't get it that would surely be circumstantial evidence that "something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, Mr. Jones".
Did you know that there were supposedly 2 other bridges that were struck that day? The Valleyview Bridge in Ohio and the Indian River Bridge in Delaware. Now today there has been another one in Oklahoma. I don't believe in coincidences and certainly not 4 that resemble the same incident so closely related in time!
If this were the only strange thing that had been happening over the last four years, I would buy this explanation. But this is one of WAY TOO MANY STRANGE THINGS FOR IT TO BE A MERE MISTAKE.
Good work everyone. What was the wind speed and direction? What was the tidal current speed? Was this ship coasting out to sea on the tide flow? Dropping anchor and the ship moving over it may have helped pull the bow to starboard in that video. "The question is, was it intentional . . . ?" Need more data before convicting the ignorant.
Another engineer commented that when starting the engines in reverse the propellor would have a paddle wheel effect driving the stern to port pivoting the bow towards the bridge.
I'm guessing that no bow thrusters could have been applied with enough thrust force to the starboard bow to move her back on track to the port side glide path. She is large and in charge without stern rudder direction and screw rotations of counter rotating efforts. Too much confusion.
“If a nefarious actor was intending for the ship to hit the pier of the bridge, knocking power out to the ship is the last thing you’d want to do. Without steering, there’s no way to intentionally direct the ship into the bridge.”
This is an important point. However - if they wanted it to look like an accident, they succeeded. If the target was not hit, it was just malfunction with a near miss.
Great explanation. I know everyone wants to call it sabotage but weird accidents do happen. I have much more confidence in your analysis than many of the others I’ve read!
I'm nobody...but I completely agree with your explanation and in particular the influence of bank suction and the bad luck of "last rudder position" during power failure and the influence of the presence of the Curtiss Bay channel. Nice that you had the opportunity to experiment in a simulator.
"We need a full investigation of why the power went out and why it took so long for backup power to be restored."
That's for sure. And if we don't get it that would surely be circumstantial evidence that "something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, Mr. Jones".
Excellent explanation.
Bank suction.
Something new I had not considered.
Thank you for the dose of humility!
Did you know that there were supposedly 2 other bridges that were struck that day? The Valleyview Bridge in Ohio and the Indian River Bridge in Delaware. Now today there has been another one in Oklahoma. I don't believe in coincidences and certainly not 4 that resemble the same incident so closely related in time!
If this were the only strange thing that had been happening over the last four years, I would buy this explanation. But this is one of WAY TOO MANY STRANGE THINGS FOR IT TO BE A MERE MISTAKE.
Good work everyone. What was the wind speed and direction? What was the tidal current speed? Was this ship coasting out to sea on the tide flow? Dropping anchor and the ship moving over it may have helped pull the bow to starboard in that video. "The question is, was it intentional . . . ?" Need more data before convicting the ignorant.
Another engineer commented that when starting the engines in reverse the propellor would have a paddle wheel effect driving the stern to port pivoting the bow towards the bridge.
I'm guessing that no bow thrusters could have been applied with enough thrust force to the starboard bow to move her back on track to the port side glide path. She is large and in charge without stern rudder direction and screw rotations of counter rotating efforts. Too much confusion.
Time clock to impact ran to "0" ,
“If a nefarious actor was intending for the ship to hit the pier of the bridge, knocking power out to the ship is the last thing you’d want to do. Without steering, there’s no way to intentionally direct the ship into the bridge.”
This is an important point. However - if they wanted it to look like an accident, they succeeded. If the target was not hit, it was just malfunction with a near miss.
Is that another boat sitting to the right side of video, under the other bridge support pillar?