BALTIMORE BRIDGE-SHIP COLLISION - WHO OR WHAT IS TO BLAME?
This is a breaking news story, and major news outlets are the best source of updates on rescue efforts. Here is a different angle.
Let’s begin with the horrifying video of the impact.
Even as rescue workers search for victims, behind the scenes and the headlines, the shipping industry, in addition to providing emergency help, will be mobilizing to clear the wreckage, re-open the harbor and prepare for an almighty legal battle over responsibility.
WHAT ON EARTH WERE THEY THINKING?
The obvious initial public reaction includes the question: ‘How could they be so stupid?’ It’s the same impulse we often have when our computer or mobile phone breaks down: ‘why can’t they just get it right?!” However, it is far too soon to draw accurate conclusions. Breaking news headlines can sometimes end up being wrong about cause or causes of any disaster. For instance, there is an early news report that the ship’s engines were either shut down, or for some reason not propelling the vessel. Depending upon the strength and direction of currents an unpowered ship could be at the mercy of ‘nature.’ If the ship was in fact unpowered, it could raise questions about a backup system and engine maintenance.
‘WHO DONE IT?’
Each disaster leads to a detective story. On the surface, based upon less than a day after the bridge disaster, the obvious finger pointing is toward the ship’s crew. Ultimately, the question of responsibility may not have a straightforward answer and could involve shared or overlapping accountability among multiple parties. Here are some possibilities….
Crew Responsibility: The crew of the ship has a primary responsibility for the safe operation of the vessel. This includes maintaining proper watch, following navigational procedures, and responding appropriately to emergencies such as engine failure. So, who was steering that ship in Baltimore? Were they communicating properly with each other, and with harbor authorities?
Ship Operating Company: The company that operates the cargo ship, depending upon laws that apply, could also bear responsibility for ensuring the vessel's safe operation. This includes implementing adequate maintenance schedules, providing proper training to the crew, and adhering to regulations and industry standards. If failures in maintenance or operational procedures contributed to the engine failure, the operating company could be held accountable.
Designer/Manufacturer of Engine System: If the engine failed, and if it was due to a design flaw or manufacturing defect in the ship's engine system, the responsibility may lie with the designer or manufacturer of that system. Design flaws, inadequate testing, or faulty components could all contribute to an engine's failure to operate properly.
Regulatory Authorities: Regulatory bodies responsible for overseeing maritime safety may also face scrutiny if it's found that inadequate regulations, lax enforcement, or gaps in oversight contributed to the incident. Ensuring compliance with safety standards and conducting thorough inspections are crucial aspects of regulatory responsibility.
Again, answers to all of these questions will take time. Investigations often uncover a chain of events involving design flaws, construction errors, inadequate maintenance, regulatory failures, or a combination of these factors. Human decisions and actions play a crucial role at various stages, from design and construction to inspection and maintenance.
However, it's essential to recognize that systemic failures don't necessarily absolve individuals of responsibility. Often, human errors are symptoms of larger systemic issues such as poor training, insufficient oversight, or flawed organizational cultures.
HOW MIGHT THAT COLLISION HAVE BEEN AVOIDED?
Naturally, this tragedy would have been avoided if everything and everybody involved had been functioning properly. But given the situation at that moment, what other measures might have helped, and how likely could such measures help at other bridges.
Some, or none, of the following procedures may have been in place in Baltimore. I am listing them here because investigators will obviously be asking those questions.
Pilot Assistance: Pilot boats are often used to guide large vessels through narrow channels, congested waterways, or challenging navigation conditions. Pilots, who are experienced navigators familiar with local waters, board incoming ships to provide expert guidance during critical maneuvers. In the event of an engine failure or other emergency, a pilot on board can help navigate the vessel safely and minimize the risk of drifting into obstacles like bridges.
Tugboat Assistance: Tugboats are powerful vessels equipped with towing capabilities, often used for assisting ships in docking, undocking, and maneuvering in confined spaces. In the event of an engine failure or loss of control, tugboats can provide additional propulsion or towing assistance to prevent a drifting vessel from colliding with bridges or other structures.
Anchoring or Mooring: If a vessel loses engine power in a dangerous location, dropping anchor or securing the vessel to a mooring buoy can help prevent drifting until assistance arrives. This temporary measure can buy time for tugboats or other rescue vessels to respond and provide assistance.
Emergency Response Protocols: Ship crews should be trained in emergency response procedures to handle engine failures, collisions, or other critical situations effectively. This includes communication protocols, emergency drills, and coordination with local authorities and maritime rescue services.
Navigation Safety Regulations: Regulatory bodies and maritime authorities enforce navigation safety regulations to minimize the risk of collisions and accidents. These regulations may include speed limits, navigational aids, traffic separation schemes, and requirements for pilotage in certain areas.
While pilot boats and tugboats can help mitigate the risks associated with drifting vessels, their effectiveness depends on various factors such as the size and weight of the ship, the strength of the currents, and the availability of assistance resources. Operating pilot boats and tugboats can be costly due to fuel, maintenance, crew salaries, and other operational expenses. The cost-effectiveness of deploying these resources are often balanced with the potential consequences of accidents and the value of safeguarding critical infrastructure like bridges.
Remember, the facts of this disaster will take time to uncover.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO MAKE BIG BRIDGES ‘ACCIDENT-PROOF’?
"Fendering systems" or "collision protection systems,"might help at some locations. I can not confirm at this moment whether the Baltimore bridge had fendering systems at the point of impact. And there is no proof one way or the other as to whether a fendering system would have prevented the Baltimore collision.
Fendering involves installing protective barriers or structures in front of bridge supports to absorb the impact energy from collisions with ships or barges. These systems are designed to mitigate damage to bridge structures and reduce the risk of collapse in the event of a collision.
Fendering systems can take various forms, depending on factors such as the design of the bridge, the anticipated size and speed of vessels passing beneath it, and the surrounding environmental conditions. Some common types of fendering systems include:
Rubber Fenders: Rubber fenders are widely used in maritime applications to absorb impact energy from vessels. They consist of resilient rubber pads or cylinders mounted on steel frames and are designed to compress and deform upon impact, dissipating kinetic energy and reducing the force transmitted to the bridge structure.
Steel Piles or Bollards: Steel piles or bollards installed in front of bridge supports can provide a rigid barrier to prevent vessels from colliding directly with the bridge. These structures are often designed to withstand high impact loads and can be effective in preventing damage to bridge piers or abutments.
Floating Fender Systems: In some cases, floating fender systems may be deployed to protect bridge supports from collisions. These systems consist of buoyant modules or pontoons equipped with energy-absorbing elements such as rubber fenders or steel barriers. Floating fender systems can adjust to changes in water levels and vessel traffic, providing flexible protection for bridge structures.
Concrete Barriers or Piers: Concrete barriers or piers installed in front of bridge supports can also serve as protective buffers against ship collisions. These structures are designed to deflect or absorb the energy of impact, reducing the risk of damage to the bridge.
ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
Was the Baltimore bridge designed and constructed to the highest safety standard? Or could it have had a better chance of survival from a Ship collision if fendering (or better rendering) or other safety systems had been in place?
BOTTOM LINE
Safety costs money, without guarantees. The detective story now begins.
(Research resource - AI)