Container Ship Stuck In The Suez Canal OT

[Arcane]

It would be a real kicker if it all boiled down to somebody having a brain fart.

[754]

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that when it happened, I thought they mentioned dust storm...
if that ux the case, its nit just a wind problem, but harder to see as well..
flame away if I am wrong..

[Mike Burch]

The visibility from the bridge on that ship is truly terrible when she is loaded as she is to the max. Anything dead ahead that's closer to the bow than damn near a mile is simply invisible.
And although the radar scanner is above the bridge, the slightly better angle that elevation gives it will not make much difference.
Letting something the size of that into a narrow canal is simply insane.

[lynnl]

Letting something the size of that into a narrow canal is simply insane.

The Egyptians don't seem to think so. Of course receiving a toll fee of about $1M per ship per transit probably influences their rationale. And considering dozens go through every day without problems, I'd see it the same way.

[J Tiers]

.................................
Letting something the size of that into a narrow canal is simply insane.

Maybe not so insane. The size of the canal was perfect for that ship, in terms of creating a jam-up.

If it were much wider, it could not have jammed across the canal. It might have swung around, but would not have ended up jammed across, only one end t a time could impact the shoreline of the canal.

If the canal were narrower, it also would not jam the same way, it would not be able to get stuck crosswise, the angle would be more acute. That probably would not let it get stuck so thoroughly.

[754]

Like a lot of things in life ... it worked,and worked well... until it didn,t..
so now its changed, and they have to try to make sure it does not repeat. .

Not sure , did they ever have a jam up before this ?

[old mart]

When you look at the canal profile, it is obvious that the ship would have grounded even if the waterway was twice as wide. The slope of the sides is very gentle.

[J Tiers]

When you look at the canal profile, it is obvious that the ship would have grounded even if the waterway was twice as wide. The slope of the sides is very gentle.

Grounded or hit the bank.

But NOT at both ends at once. Grounding at bow only may or may not be able to be remedied by reversing during high tide, no further ado.

And if it were narrower, it likely would not have the wide flats at each side. The channel for a ship that big is much narrower than it appears, since the 15m draft is more than the side depth appears to be in the cross-sections I have seen. How accurate those are is open to question.

[A.K. Boomer]

It was just the wrong width at least in that section, like many things - "the perfect storm"

Like JT stated if wider then the tail would have just pivoted around and not got stuck --- all that weight tried to keep going and it wanted to "swap ends" this too created the horrible situation of the entire ship going "sway back" ------ if just the nose stuck and was raised the tail would have been free to sink in a little more,,,

I think the ship was in a slight side drift when the nose caught making the situation even worse so the tail tried to keep going and just plowed the stern into the opposite bank as well .


Edit; I wonder what the torsional stress was like on that beast, with one side of the bow catching more land and the opposite side of the stern doing the same it too had to be immense...

[PStechPaul]

One question would be why they keep making these ships larger. Maybe the canal fees are structured on a flat rate per ship, but it really should be based more on the size and weight of the ship and its cargo. It might be argued that two ships half the size would require two separate crews, but I doubt that is a huge expense.

[JoeLee]

One question would be why they keep making these ships larger. Maybe the canal fees are structured on a flat rate per ship, but it really should be based more on the size and weight of the ship and its cargo. It might be argued that two ships half the size would require two separate crews, but I doubt that is a huge expense.

I guess the reason is because they can. And I'm sure that the more cargo they can transport in one load reduces the shipping costs for the customer. Not sure how that works out for the end user of those products being transported. Also bigger loads = less trips. Just like big trucks and trains.

JL.............

[reggie_obe]

One question would be why they keep making these ships larger. Maybe the canal fees are structured on a flat rate per ship, but it really should be based more on the size and weight of the ship and its cargo. It might be argued that two ships half the size would require two separate crews, but I doubt that is a huge expense.

Time in port is reduced with a jumbo ship. More dockside cranes can work a longer ship. Less time spent docking than would be with two ships. Probably other things too.

[754]

What would you rather be in on rough water, a 14 foot rowboat or a 140 foot vessel ?

[darryl]

The canal is too wide. If it was narrower, the ship could not have slewed around enough for the bow to dig in- on the other hand it isn't wide enough. If it was wider, the stern would have just slewed around and the ship would have been looking the other way- let it go around again and off you go- just like us with our cars back in the day doing 360s.

Looking at it another way, perhaps the ships are the wrong shape- they should be round. No bow to dig in, no stern to catch. Make a convoy out of them- make them two miles long, doesn't matter. You can still go around corners, and if one titanics and sinks you can just let it go- you don't have to lose the whole convoy.

Whoo hoo- my mind is razor sharp today

[Dan Dubeau]

What would you rather be in on rough water, a 14 foot rowboat or a 140 foot vessel ?

Shore