Removal of the Dali takes centre stage in this week’s salvage operations in Baltimore
After a five-week hiatus, containerships have started to call again at the port of Baltimore on the US east coast.
Yesterday saw the arrival of the 2,872 teu MSC Cargo Passion III, able to navigate its way to berth through a recently opened 12 m deep channel. The ship was carrying around 1,000 containers and is the first boxship to call at the ninth largest American port since the Dali containership smashed into a bridge on March 26, killing six road maintenance workers and bringing most of the port to a standstill.
As soon as this ship leaves port, the deeper channel will be closed temporarily as salvors work to move the stricken Dali vessel.
According to a release by the authorities leading the port’s clean-up operations issued on Friday, one month to the day since this year’s most high-profile shipping accident, 171 commercial vessels had transited the four alternate channels. As of Friday, 137 containers of the estimated 180 necessary to access the portion of the bridge atop the Dali had been removed.
To address the estimated 50,000 tons of wreckage at the Francis Scott Key Bridge site, the Unified Command has assembled a substantial fleet of diverse vessels and equipment which includes 36 barges, 27 tugboats, 22 floating cranes, 10 excavators, one dredger, one skimmer, and three Coast Guard cutters. As of three days ago, more than 3,000 tons of wreckage and debris had been removed from the site for disposal or recycling.
As a former Master Mariner and ship safety inspector for shipping companys including Shell, Chevron and BP, and while not wanting to exclude the Dali from some degree of responsibility in this incident, I would be looking very largely at the port authority, or whoever’s responsibility it was for ensuring that the waterway was operated in a safe way. That bridge had no protection to ensure that a ship which was unable to steer or control its engine could not collide with critical parts of the bridge structure which, as it turned out, if damaged could, and did result in catastrophic failure of that structure. The collapse of the bridge was entirely foreseeable, and should have been the subject of a periodic risk assessment to determine what might, and subsequently did, result in more than a mile of the bridge collapsing. Indeed, the people of the area surrounding that bridge and who used every day were extremely fortunate that the incident occurred at night at a time when very few people were actually on the bridge. Six unfortunate souls were lost that night, but thank goodness the incident did not happen during the morning or evening rush hours. In that respect, and whilst bad enough, you were fortunate that the loss of life did not amount to thousands of people. People that the overseeing authority for that bridge had a responsibility to protect from harm, people that would not have deserved to die, and who were fortunate that the incident, not accident, happened at a time of night when very few people were actually on the bridge.
I suspect that a risk assessment for the bridge structure was either not carried out, because the relevant authority considered the inevitable findings of a competent assessor would raise the fact that the support structure for the bridge was not adequately protected from a ship that was “Not under command” ( See International Maritime Collision Regulations), and would have been costly to implement, or that an assessment was carried out and was deliberately buried because of its likely cost. Either way someone needs to investigate who was responsible for that assessment, what the assessment revealed, and why its findings were not implemented. If no assessment was carried out, then the authority for ensuring that the waterway and its surrounding infrastructure remained safe at all times needs to come under the spotlight to find out who was negligent, or had been leaned on not to order such an assessment.
Well said where was the bridge protection or tug escorts.
Some things are not preventable, 186000 ships navigated through the channel since its completion in 1977. Only one incident in 1980 which resulted in about 500,00 in repairs. I worked on the bridge in 1975 and know first hand how well it was constructed. It had protection. Sure,other measures may have prevented such a tragedy, but a ship that size,speed,and weight, would be hard to control in a similar situation. The E Greiner Co. was the engineer, they designed the Bay Bridge as well. So from your evaluation that bridge must be vulnerable as well. Just saying
First with such a large Ship , why wasn’t there tugs there to support it pass the Bridge, that in itself would have stopped this Accident in the first place.Second when they Built that Bridge 40 or 50 years ago, they probably didnt need guard Barriers to protect the
Bridge because at that time the Ships where not that Big. Third who was the Chief Engineer that let this Ship Sail? They where having Trouble with the engine but decided to go to Sea anyways. I think most of the Fault lies with the Shipper.
I concur.. If you look at modern day bridges, there are safety measures in place !
Some out standing pillars.. that protect the main structure..
Not apparent in this case .
Seems like the port authority and government was lacking in hindsight..
But hopefully this gets sorted and better bridge safety gets in place..
No surprise that a”master mariner” would only defend their own community in this. The Dali had “some” responsibility in this? Try this on for size… The bulk of the fault lies with the captain of that container ship and the company who owned and operated it. So was it shoddy maintenance, incompetence, disregard for standards and training requirements, or just general stupidity on behalf of the captain and crew, or some other factor that led to the ship hitting the bridge? After all, the bridge didn’t leap into the path of the ship. Thousands of other ships have passed safely under that bridge.Key takeaway is that it’s time for tighter restrictions on ships and on the shipping industry, and greater personal liability for captains and owners.
The Maryland Transportation Authority is responsible for the bridge. They are funded through tolls. Their guiding principles state that safety is one of their priorities. The bridges under their purview are referred to as “toll facilities”. Draw your own conclusions.
This was a good read , and. Your. Right. Someone needs to be held accountable !!!
What strikes me as odd is the fact that the container ship struck the bridge with propulsion clearly evident in the many videos posted from the accident. In said videos your can see the ships wake is created by more that the rivers current. This bodies the question if the ship had propulsion why did it strike directly center of one of the bridges support structures? Why is there no mention of these obvious facts? In think , the whole disaster needs a thorough investigation by all federal agencies!
I have to agree with Mr Pink. I’m no professional inspector, but having grown up on the gulf coast of Texas before moving to Virginia, and being on boats, around shipping channels both in Texas, Louisiana, and Virginia’s coast and inland waterways, there are alot of smaller bridges, in much less high profile areas that have a great deal more sufficient protection than the key bridge did, and though the Dali is responsible for the damage and casualties in Maryland, the responsibility equally falls on the agency or agency’s responsible for safety of all who use that thoroughfare, whether on the bridge, or on the water. And rightfully so for Mr Pink to label it as an incident, because there are so many ways this could have been prevented if adequate assessments and actions had been taken by all parties. Follow the money, the channels that money does or doesn’t flow through, and I’m certain all the why’s will make a great deal more sense.
When ships and warships transit under the Auckland Harbour Bridge either to Chelsea Sugar Refinery or Kauri Point Defence Establishment they are required to have a
Pilot onboard and harbour tugs attached to bow and stern, that has been a rule for at least 35 years.
I was involved in the.transits as crew on the tugs or pilot vessels.
Lets not deviate from the issue here !!
The fault lies very clearly with the Master, Chief Engineer, Manager Synergy & owner Grace Ocean – whoever that is ?
Will the men. women who are owner of Grace Ocean come out and be counted !!