Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Total bridge collapse in Baltimore...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JAJ" data-source="post: 17026770" data-attributes="member: 131874"><p>I'd be surprised if the IBS on a ship built in 2015 didn't have it's ECDIS managing the rudder to enable track following. Big fuel savings at stake. However, all that goes out the window when there's no engine power to turn the propeller or hydraulics to swing the rudder. Track following isn't brain surgery and with the speed they were carrying, they could have probably kept on course and missed the bridge as they slowed down if they had rudder control.</p><p></p><p>Also, speaking of speeds, I thought again about the timing from the loss of power to the grounding and it occurred to me that a ship that big can't slow from 10kt to 2kt in half a nautical mile. The 2kt speed on the website is probably an artifact of the website interpolating the vessel's speed - it was 10kt at the start and zero after grounding so it shows a smooth slow-down, not the sudden stop they probably really had. </p><p></p><p>However, things don't change much if you assume it only slowed to 8kt instead of 2kt. There would have been 3 minutes and 20 seconds between loss of power and grounding instead of 5 minutes, and the cross-current would have been 1.5kts instead of 1. Different numbers, same conclusion.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JAJ, post: 17026770, member: 131874"] I'd be surprised if the IBS on a ship built in 2015 didn't have it's ECDIS managing the rudder to enable track following. Big fuel savings at stake. However, all that goes out the window when there's no engine power to turn the propeller or hydraulics to swing the rudder. Track following isn't brain surgery and with the speed they were carrying, they could have probably kept on course and missed the bridge as they slowed down if they had rudder control. Also, speaking of speeds, I thought again about the timing from the loss of power to the grounding and it occurred to me that a ship that big can't slow from 10kt to 2kt in half a nautical mile. The 2kt speed on the website is probably an artifact of the website interpolating the vessel's speed - it was 10kt at the start and zero after grounding so it shows a smooth slow-down, not the sudden stop they probably really had. However, things don't change much if you assume it only slowed to 8kt instead of 2kt. There would have been 3 minutes and 20 seconds between loss of power and grounding instead of 5 minutes, and the cross-current would have been 1.5kts instead of 1. Different numbers, same conclusion. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Total bridge collapse in Baltimore...
Top