• Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    My current conspiracy theory as to the accident:

    The ship lost main power because the corporation that leases it doesn’t pay for sufficient maintenance because that would eat into executive bonuses and shareholder dividends. The ship lost control at a pretty pivotal time with no safety measures whatsoever in place, because “most of the time they aren’t needed.” And because this is the chronically negligent maritime industry, not much will be done about it industry wide.

    • just_change_it@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Slow your roll captain conspiracy. That sounds like lunacy.

      It’s way more likely that illegal aliens transported this ship under the cover of night to cover up the melting of the steel beams by jet fuel. They don’t just crumple like that on their own after all. We’ve known all along these cargo containers are hollow on the inside.

    • Leviathan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      We really need to bring back the true meaning of conspiracy, because these “conspiracy theories” just serve to distract the public from the wrongdoings of the capitalist class.

    • Lev_Astov@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Believe it or not, the insurance companies drive maritime safety requirements since they hate having to pay out for things like this. The classification societies that regulate and inspect ships to approve for insurance coverage have very strict and well thought out safety requirements that get better any time a new failure mode is discovered.

      I personally think this one was human error in an emergency situation.

      Theory: They lost primary electric service and began a slight drift to starboard. When they got backup power online, they began a crash reverse to slow down. This would hinder rudder control since the ship was still going forward and now just creating turbulence with the prop. Reverse would torque the stern to port, swinging the bow to starboard, as we saw. The bow thruster was offline due to the power issues.

      • BlueEther@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        from the photos that I saw thismorning she had also dropped a bow anchor, my thoughts are if this was done when the bow had already began its drift to starboard that could have swung the stern even more to port.

        At least they called in in

      • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Insurance companies, being for-profit institutions, are poorly suited to manage industry safety.

        As for theories as to exactly what happened in terms of “the power failure caused the rudder to remain 4 degrees to port and stopped the bow thruster, causing the ship to veer off course” or whatever…I’ll wait until Brick Immortar reads me the NTSB report.

        Being a pilot (as in an airplane driver, not a harbor pilot) as long as I have, I’ve had this conversation a lot:

        “Did you see that airplane crash in the news?”

        “No.”

        “Here look:” 3 seconds to look at a hastily googled headline and a badly taken photo of what looks like a mangled Piper Cherokee wing sticking up from behind something “What do you think happened?”

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Casual Navigation has (amazingly) already made a video about this accident and hypothesizes that the geography of the channels in the harbor may have pulled it to starboard. Had they not lost power they could have corrected, but it looks like happened at the worst possible moment.