Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Full video of ship hitting and destroying the Francis Scott Key
 bridge in Baltimore
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 07:24:35 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <uu6ive$ba0c$2@dont-email.me>
References: <2iv80jd4bmm08fr24nmum9k8vikiumhe0d@4ax.com>
 <6604f7e3$0$897428$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <uu5lp7$3d55h$1@i2pn2.org>
 <uu681f$8p0k$1@dont-email.me> <uu69um$94mb$1@dont-email.me>
 <lhqidkxedm.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 14:24:48 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8203e9fd12e53c5240f3141536fee257";
	logging-data="370700"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18rE8mXPizsZTcGusQBxBUX"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+4RcyM9pgHA3PlnzrVugNTo9PdI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <lhqidkxedm.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
Bytes: 5051

On 3/29/2024 5:59 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-03-29 12:50, Don Y wrote:
> 
>> That.  Esp when it comes to commercial vessels, the "rules of the road"
>> (river?) implicitly acknowledge this in that the stand on vessel is almost
>> always the one that is least able to make quick changes to its course or
>> progress.
> 
> Why was the operation done without tow boats, was that customary?

Most likely, cost.  Unless required, you'd not opt to add to your
costs unless it was to offset a "significant" financial risk to YOUR
investment.

> Where I live, we barely avoided a sea oil catastrophe about a month ago. A sea 
> tanker ship (Front Siena) was approaching harbour without requesting a pilot, 
> not contacting, and not responding to radio. And on a collision course to the 
> rocks.
> 
> The pilot made haste, boarded the ship unaided and in the dark, all deck lights 
> off. When he reached the bridge, there were 7 people there just chatting. He 
> was offered a coffee; instead he started roaring orders. Reverse engines top 
> speed, two tow boats pushing, anchor dropped. Stopped one mile from the rocks 
> (more or less, from memory).
> 
> Ship fined.
> 
> Spanish link with AIS route map
> <https://www.naucher.com/la-penosa-historia-del-petrolero-front-siena-y-su-tripulacion-negligente/>

In most cases, the people making the decisions "on-the-spot" are not likely
going to be held accountable (at least not to the extent of the resources
they are risking).

"They don't pay me enough for this shit..."

Wasn't there a cruise ship run up on the rocks a few years back?  Because
the captain wanted to give the passengers a "good view"?

Did none of his superiors know of PAST episodes like this?  Or, did they
look the other way because it provided passengers (*customers*) with
a memorable experience (to share with other POTENTIAL passengers)?

I designed an autopilot for recreational/small-commercial boats many
years ago.  You told it where you wanted to go (lat-lon) and it got
you there.

But, it only had control over the rudder.  So, couldn't STOP the vessel
if it noticed it was veering too far off track (e.g., if cross-track error
exceeds X nautical miles).  Nor could it stop the vessel as it approached
it's destination (without manual intervention, it would gladly sail
PAST the destination, discover that the destination was now BEHIND it
and make a 180 degree turn... and repeat this process until the tanks
ran dry OR it collided with something).

I advocated for an alarm that I could sound to alert the skipper
that we were approaching the destination so he could either stop
the vessel or tell me to move on to the NEXT waypoint.  Given that,
on small commercial vessels, it would be highly likely for such an
autopilot to be (ab)used to free up an extra pair of arms (the mate
at the helm) to attend to the OTHER work on the ship (e.g., preparing
lobster pots, nets, etc.), it seemed highly likely that there would
be cases where the vessel was under-supervised.

My boss dismissed this outright.  Any such alarm would add cost as well
as complicate the installation (because the alarm would have to be
sited somewhere that the skipper/crew would be GUARANTEED to hear)
both of which added to effective selling price.  He said, adding
an alarm would just cause the skipper to cut the wires to the
alarm (assuming it was ever installed).

Similarly, giving me control of the throttle would complicate the
product (as above) AND still leave opportunities for abuse as a
vessel adrift (not under power) is also a navigational hazzard.

<shrug>  Shit happens.  Hopefully not often enough to demand cause for
remedies.