ChaosControl
Member

Thanks.

Thanks. I don’t know anything about big container ships, but it seems rudder control is most important even if the engine isn’t running: why would a ship builder not have an emergency generator tied into powering control of the rudder?

Great Video. Thanks for sharing. So the ship's emergency generator which is relatively small (about the size of a truck engine) is tied to just a few systems, one of which is control of the rudder. So the question is why it appears they have no rudder control despite the emergency generator being on. And that with no rudder control, the current coming out of Curtis Bay into the Patapsco could have been enough to turn the bow into the concrete supports of the bridge. Had they had rudder control, since the boat was moving forward about 9 mph, they could have easily passed under the bridge even if the motor was not working.

It looks like the power went off two times. The ship was going forward without power, but with a good amount of momentum, the first time and when the power came back on, the pilot put the engine in reverse. Doing so caused the prop walk (the ship to turn). Normally prop walk can be corrected by going slightly forward. However the pilot would have been unable to do this because the power went off a second time. i agree; in hindsight it seems like the ship had a lot of momentum without power so allowing the ship to get past the bridge seems like it might have been a better alternative.