genoa tragedy

[Exatem]

I'm sorry, but the list of facts that I've done shows that it's not about "sphication."
To accept that an obscured ship, with an inadequate motorization, with an insufficient possibility of maneuvering, puts itself in the middle of a port is not unfortunate, or at least for me it is not.

motorization is not inadequate. It's out of today's technology.
if we look at this all sailboats are outdated. . .
It is not impossible to manoeuvre, needs trailers.
It did not change but attempted a normal manoeuvre carried out 240.000 times a year.

 

[Er Presidente]

but do you want to tell me what protection the airports have?
If a plane deviates for whatever reason from the right path and points to the tower, what protects the latter from the impact?
or do the towers miles away from the slopes?

control towers are not on the flight line, on the path, but located in safety area. It would be different if they put the control towers on a lead head with such height that "safely" the planes would overtake it. They would spend years before a plane takes it in full, but it wouldn't be fatal.

 

[Exatem]

control towers are not on the flight line, on the path, but located in safety area. It would be different if they put the control towers on a lead head with such a halt that "safely" the planes would overtake it. They would spend years before a plane takes it in full, but it wouldn't be fatal.

but not even the tower of genova is on the course of the ships. It is disproportionate to it but a ship has, by causes to be ascertained, deviated from what is the normal course and has impacted you. You say that the airport control towers are not on the flight line but I told you: if a plane must from the normal course for any reason and it hits it in full.
I did the example of the linate incident.

who had predicted that a baggage sorting center placed there was in a potentially dangerous area?
No one until that day.

 

[MBT]

As you know, I don't deal with ships
I'm not even an expert in security, so take what I say as reflections of a Utonto any

Then, incriminating and demonising a design choice is easy.
However, of similar examples we see hundreds every blessed day and accept them for what they are, serenely. When something happens, but... "I told you..."
Have you ever taken the highway? According to you, the highway exits are in a "secure" position for those who work in it?
According to you, if a 44-ton autoarticolate (let's leave exceptional transport) has a problem, where do we find the inbox? How many trucks pass through a toll every day? What is the probability of an event happening? I would say it's just a matter of time.. .

Have you ever entered steelworks? It's a kind of Russian roulette, between siviere, baskets, ovens and water. And yet... the events happen, when captain is dead. then we start because certain things have to be there to be able to work.

Have you ever seen a carpenter with a ribbon saw? It is a declared way to cut your fingers, with good peace of safety devices. We want to start a war against tape saw manufacturers over the last 150 years?

we can also talk about earthquake, since it has already been done. What are we going to do for? for a grade 8? for a grade 10? even in the gobi desert, why "do you never know"? Perhaps it is the case of letting emotionality stand out and accepting that sometimes "things happen", and cannot always happen to others. screaming on the rubble "need to design better" is easy, to allow to live in an expensive bunker is a little less.

Perhaps, if a building has been there for some century, it means that it has resisted both the weather and human errors. It must not have been thought so bad, in the end. Clearly, if conditions change to the contour... It's not the designer's fault.
It's the same reason why, when I park in front of an old supermarket, the car enters the millimeter seats. He's not an asshole parking designer... are the cars to have increased their size!

 

[marcof]

Then, incriminating and demonising a design choice is easy.
However, of similar examples we see hundreds every blessed day and accept them for what they are, serenely. When something happens, but... "I told you..."
(cut)
Perhaps it is the case of letting emotionality stand out and accepting that sometimes "things happen", and cannot always happen to others. screaming on the rubble "need to design better" is easy, to allow to live in an expensive bunker is a little less.

I put these two considerations in line by cutting the examples because it seems to me that they very tightly summarize the concept of your post allowing me to say my
It is true that "the sin of then is full" but it is equally true that we cannot always accept in acritical way what is proposed to us for the future and not even what has been proposed to us in the past and that, in the light of the facts, it has then turned out to be faulty.
This does not mean reaching the extreme and alarming for chemical shales, aliens, the "fluorocontamination of water... " [cit. :smile:] and similar minchiate.
the design choices that lead to the realization of a given artifact do not live of own dignity only because they are the fruit of the thought of qualified professionals. Unfortunately, the investigations that have arisen after certain events have shown too many times that behind these choices there were either incompetents, or dishonests or both at the same time. [EDIT] I add the category of criminals, which I had forgotten.
it would not explain otherwise how tragedies could take place, to make an example, like those of the vaiont, where the flower of engineers, geologists and captains of industry have decided to build a dam under a mountain that for some century took the name mountain toc. the old peasants, cattlemen and shepherds of those valleys had long understood that it was a mountain that came down to "touchs" without need of geological prospections and other sophisticated investigations. Of course, the engineers made an excellent project, it attempted that the dam resisted perfectly, filling himself with the ground if emptying water containing without moving a millimeter. excellent project, in the wrong place or "successful-dead patient intervention".
It is hard to think that longarone disappearance and neighboring fractions together with its inhabitants are "things that happen". Unfortunately, "I said it", pronounced by the grove, it was worth and still worth more than all the technological and intellectual effort that led to the realization of that dam.
This speech can be reported to many other cases where we discussed incidents, misfortunes or misfortunes.

 

[numero1]

As you know, I don't deal with ships
I'm not even an expert in security, so take what I say as reflections of a Utonto any

Then, incriminating and demonising a design choice is easy.
However, of similar examples we see hundreds every blessed day and accept them for what they are, serenely. When something happens, but... "I told you..."
Have you ever taken the highway? According to you, the highway exits are in a "secure" position for those who work in it?
According to you, if a 44-ton autoarticolate (let's leave exceptional transport) has a problem, where do we find the inbox? How many trucks pass through a toll every day? What is the probability of an event happening? I would say it's just a matter of time.. .

Have you ever entered steelworks? It's a kind of Russian roulette, between siviere, baskets, ovens and water. And yet... the events happen, when captain is dead. then we start because certain things have to be there to be able to work.

Have you ever seen a carpenter with a ribbon saw? It is a declared way to cut your fingers, with good peace of safety devices. We want to start a war against tape saw manufacturers over the last 150 years?

we can also talk about earthquake, since it has already been done. What are we going to do for? for a grade 8? for a grade 10? even in the gobi desert, why "do you never know"? Perhaps it is the case of letting emotionality stand out and accepting that sometimes "things happen", and cannot always happen to others. screaming on the rubble "need to design better" is easy, to allow to live in an expensive bunker is a little less.

Perhaps, if a building has been there for some century, it means that it has resisted both the weather and human errors. It must not have been thought so bad, in the end. Clearly, if conditions change to the contour... It's not the designer's fault.
It's the same reason why, when I park in front of an old supermarket, the car enters the millimeter seats. He's not an asshole parking designer... are the cars to have increased their size!

I agree, and I add that the fact of the tir had already been mentioned.
so you should leave emotionality alone, as you call them; obviously excluding all the cases of obvious misprojection, which there are, no one says they do not exist.
Hi.

 

[MBT]

I put these two considerations in line by cutting the examples because it seems to me that they very tightly summarize the concept of your post allowing me to say my
It is true that "the sin of then is full" but it is equally true that we cannot always accept in acritical way what is proposed to us for the future and not even what has been proposed to us in the past and that, in the light of the facts, it has then turned out to be faulty.
This does not mean reaching the extreme and alarming for chemical shales, aliens, the "fluorocontamination of water... " [cit. :smile:] and similar minchiate.
the design choices that lead to the realization of a given artifact do not live of own dignity only because they are the fruit of the thought of qualified professionals. Unfortunately, the investigations that have arisen after certain events have shown too many times that behind these choices there were either incompetents, or dishonests or both at the same time. [EDIT] I add the category of criminals, which I had forgotten.
it would not explain otherwise how tragedies could take place, to make an example, like those of the vaiont, where the flower of engineers, geologists and captains of industry have decided to build a dam under a mountain that for some century took the name mountain toc. the old peasants, cattlemen and shepherds of those valleys had long understood that it was a mountain that came down to "touchs" without need of geological prospections and other sophisticated investigations. Of course, the engineers made an excellent project, it attempted that the dam resisted perfectly, filling himself with the ground if emptying water containing without moving a millimeter. excellent project, in the wrong place or "successful-dead patient intervention".
It is hard to think that longarone disappearance and neighboring fractions together with its inhabitants are "things that happen". Unfortunately, "I said it", pronounced by the grove, it was worth and still worth more than all the technological and intellectual effort that led to the realization of that dam.
This speech can be reported to many other cases where we discussed incidents, misfortunes or misfortunes.

the example fits, perfectly
but it is difficult to say when to apply it and when not
If the toc was not franate, no one could have said "I told you..."
think of all the constructions that went well despite the usual "gufi".
but in a much less "dramatic" way he thinks of those who saw the pc as a toy and would never bet on its diffusion, who thought that reaching space was impossible, who claimed that cars would not succeed. . .
If they had guessed it was from "I told you...". since they clamorously wronged him. . No one says anything!

every day I make choices. for my own admission, eventually some are wrong. others, who seem wrong in the eyes of their colleagues, eventually turn out to be correct. I am not a genius, but the example I need to make it clear that in any field you make a decision (poor, hopefully), you fight for it, you collide with those who do not agree and in the end, invariably, you can win or lose.

 

[marcof]

the design choices that lead to the realization of a given artifact do not live of own dignity only because they are the fruit of the thought of qualified professionals. Unfortunately, the investigations that have arisen after certain events have shown too many times that behind these choices there were either incompetents, or dishonests or both at the same time. [EDIT] I add the category of criminals, which I had forgotten.
it would not explain otherwise how tragedies could take place, to make an example, like those of the vaiont, where the flower of engineers, geologists and captains of industry have decided to build a dam under a mountain that for some century took the name mountain toc.

the example fits, perfectly
but it is difficult to say when to apply it and when not

to me it does not seem very difficult, in exclaiming cases, to say how certain precautions should be taken and when not.

If the toc was not franate, no one could have said "I told you..."

the fact is that the mountain toc è franate, they call it toc because frana, and frana for centuries. right for a fast cronca and also tara a wiki looks here under the heading "the previous"http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/disastro_del_vajontthe fact is that they had said it premium that happened, they had "predicted" and, incidentally, they had predicted so many geologists not priced. of these cases, having the desire to document, they find too many.
Now, I don't know anything about the collapsed tower, how the ports are organized, why it should be in that position etc. but from what little I have read it seems obvious how much road, indeed how much water, a ship of that stand out control runs even at reduced speed before stopping, and to stop against the structures of the port. to me the photo from the cruise ship tower made some impression; I would be curious to know the comments of the pilots in the tower every time they saw that beast pass to 50 meters.
we will see if from the inchiasta it will not emerge that someone "had said it" and maybe he also wrote that the tower was too close to the channel of maneuver, and maybe he wrote it at the time of the project of that new tower.. .

think of all the constructions that went well despite the usual "gufi".

It is not a question of "gufi" and I believe that in making certain decisions one should not trust in the luck that prevails on the loser.
Surely you can not weigh all the eventualities (the meteorite on the stadium, the 747 that lands for 180° while the track is for 90° etc), but there are cases in which those occurrences seem quite evident to me, especially for technicians. we profane the evidence we see them later, with the senno of then, but we see them.. .
an example of which we discussed is those of the batteries of 787 that caught fire. they had caught fire during the tests, it was even forbidden to transport on planes, transport!, and they used them as main batteries. you want to say that boeing is boeing: they did a procade and point. I have now put a piece on it, and we hope that the piece does not prove bigger than the hole because they did not foresee that particular situation in which the batteries actually take fire, the enclosure does not hold, the smoke does not evacuate etc.
But if you decide that you have to put your head under the sand to make the prestigious games with the numbers as the nasa engineers did in assessing the risks of shuttle accidents with loss of the crew (which literally gave good numbers to play the lot), well, at least let us know when we have to recommend to the fortune goddess.

 

[Er Presidente]

motorization is not inadequate. It's out of today's technology.
if we look at this all sailboats are outdated. . .
It is not impossible to manoeuvre, needs trailers.
It did not change but attempted a normal manoeuvre carried out 240.000 times a year.

I wonder, as a perfect ignorant, was the ship able to carry out autonomously the manoeuvre?
I guess not, having to turn back without the help of double propellers etc., here is then that they serve the trailers to "help" the ship and drive it.
but the ship was a simple "inerme iron piece" unable to manoeuvre, unavailable rudder for the vortices of the only great propeller etc., or did it have a residual ability to manoeuvre?
the trailers had to place the ship in the direction of the exit and the ship was only to reverse the rotation of the propeller?
from what little you understand the ship did not complete the turnback and went to collide with the tower without the trailers being able to prevent it.
Therefore, I suppose, the two trailers alone were not able to maneuver the ship that had to "collaborate" not only in the push but also in the pirate.
now the cases are three, or the ship was able to turn or not, or only partially.
If the ship, and this seems logical to me, could only collaborate marginally to the maneuver, perhaps it should have been reasoned as if the ship was an "inactive" and put all the trailers necessary to govern it by withdrawing from the marginal capacity of manoeuvre of the ship.
If two trailers were not suffphic, what evidenced by the facts, how many would they be needed? Three, four, I don't know, but someone should have known.
I am convinced that often, always, to save time and money you look for the maximum efficiency by eliminating waste and redundancies considered useless, the system is reduced to the bone and then, for a trivial concomitance of adverse facts (sphiga), a gomena breaks, the rudder of the ship does not work etc., happens the patatrak and then the fault is of the sfiga, not of the contour the protagonist.
I attach a photo where a large ship of the past (gemella of that "sphygata") is maneuvered in the 1920s.
the hull was with the doubles, it had 12 compartments, three propellers and a rudder (practically unservable), today the concord did not have the double funds, too much wasted space, had only 4 stagnant compartments, they served large halls, and if they were not a skilled commander (!) and had not been on the island of the lily, we would have had 4000 dead because of the "s".

p.s.: accidents have always happened for a marvelous "series of adverse concomitance", otherwise we would talk about deliberate act.

 

[Exatem]

anti-realism: "a rampant phenomenon due to the increase in the frequency of situations in which people are forced to speak and have opinions in relation to subjects of which nothing knows." .
la storia…to try to contain the phenomenon, I will try to make some clarity and explain what is the activity of the pilot tower and why it was built there where, in the light of the facts, it was not to be.
the driving service to mooring and exit from the port, once completed the loading/unloading operations, is carried out by the body of the pilots.
it was before the accident, of 22 people, active 24 hours a day, for every day of the year and that they had 6 pilots (2 of them destroyed by the collapse of the tower).
as my habit we make a historical excursion.
at the beginning of the marinery the pilot-farist-ormer was also in charge of the levying of the performance rates.
This activity is lost in the night of time and for centuries has marked a category of workers who actually became such with the industrial revolution. in a painting of 1481 the placement of the pilots of the port of genova seems to be at the tower of the Greeks, a construction at the end of the old pier. sure in 1879 the pilots had their position on Siberian port in an advanced position regarding the harbour installations of then. in 1901 the pilots requested the construction of a more suitable structure on the pier. in 1913 the first real tower was finally built. In 1928 the new building was built with an octagonal tower with a terrace. This building was destroyed twice by bombing and finally rebuilt in 1947.
It can therefore be said that the seat of the pilots is historically located at the head of the pier, practically always.
then with the construction of the floating basin of 1973 and the construction of the industrial area of 1987 to the draw of the pier, the view on the mouth of the port was reduced considerably. He tried to escape by using the radar to signal the approach of the ships, then directing "to view", through radio apparatuses, once the "shade zone" caused by the basin and the ships at the mooring and waiting for the boarding of the pilot. it was necessary to have a new point of observation that allowed the total visibility also in the area of sampierdarena and the ancient port.
but to a greater number of structures on the ground corresponded less maneuvering water for the ships that in the years took on increasing dimensions. During the day, "crossing" was followed with risky dynamics, resulting in a growing traffic. at the end of the 1980s the problem took such dimensions so that it was taken seriously into account the construction of a new traffic control tower. in the middle of the 90's began work for the construction of a new pilot tower whose feasibility study had identified as a solution suitable for a building to be realized on foundation poles on horseback of the dock that enclosed the mirror of water used as shelter of the means. the choice of the site where the new construction was a compulsory choice, dictated by the favorable position that would allow a complete vision of the harbour scenario. This was the only possible one since no other part of the area met these requirements. the conformation of the territory did not help in the choice. genova is close behind the mountains that prevent the construction of new areas for the storage of the goods consequently you have always been forced to try to steal space to the sea.
natural consequence was that the maneuver of ships increasingly large had to take place in increasingly tight spaces.
So we came to the realization of the project of a new pilot tower articulated on two buildings placed to l, suspended on the water with foundation poles in which the service housing and its environments were located. at the top of the two buildings, there was a tower of 51 meters built by a cylindrical stem inside which there were stairs and elevator, surmounted by the actual operating area, a semicircular structure on two levels. the first of them were located the service equipment and the second the traffic control zone. the stem was made of reinforced concrete while the "cap" in metal and glass. the rest is sad contemporary history.
the pilotthe term pilot would derive from the Latin “pileum”, an ancient conical hat or, from “pedes”, the name of a rock of the sails to which the “pedota” was destined. of the “pilot” is already spoken in the bible when trips to the salomone king mines are described. history reveals to us that the port of ostia had the “proreta” and the “gubernator”. of the functions of the pilot gives us a ludovico aerial description in the furious orlando when at the beginning of the flight that will take astolf on the moon on horseback of the hippogriff, he says:“salito astolfo on the flying destrier / makes it motive for slow air; / indi the hunt yes, that bradamante / every view loses at a moment: / so you start with the innate pilot / the nocchier that the rocks fear and the wind; / and then that 'the port and the quarrels behind the lassa, / explains every sail and before the passages. ”other quotes give those of the Avesian abbot: "pilot is the practical one that is neither the ports of dangerous access and that is rented by the masters of foreign ships to be led to land with confidence not to break to the rocks or to give up in the docks. Here certainly seems that the pilot is one who up the prora, or in a rotten tucked, preceded and signs the way to the ship. ”in the '600 the sea is crossed by the "galeone" and later by the "vascello" faster and manor. the shipbuilding has become a true science to which are dedicated axes masters of unparalleled skill. the ships loaded with precious goods coming from the indie increase the economic value of the ships and thus becomes more and more important to preserve them from the risks connected to the maneuvers of entry and exit from the ports located at the time in proximity of rivers whose contribution of debris changes continuously the conformation of the seabeds. it becomes indispensable to ensure the safety of undercoast navigation and the movement within the ports and becomes indispensable then, to resort to local sailors who act as “pilots” assisting the commanders in the maneuvers.

today the pilot of turn is to have to manage the traffic of the entire harbour area. is the only authorized figure to do so since it knows both the problems of the port and the characteristics of the ships. sometimes treated with motorships, sometimes of turbine ships, with different subscriptions, with different spaces of maneuver. some always want to climb on board (even if going up on a ship from a pilot with waves of 4, 5 meters is a real show of courage and skill), others decide from the tower.
la tca control tower is the directing cabin, the brain of the nerve terminals that operate simultaneously in a highly complex structure as a commercial port. from here we coordinate the movements of 22 km of coastline, we organize 20 private terminals equipped to accommodate any type of goods, from oil products to metal minerals, from solid bulk to liquid ones, from passengers to container. it is the system that determines the productive capacities of the port reducing the waiting times, speeding the incoming and exit manoeuvres, disciplinary the traffic on the basis of the concept of safety. operators must coordinate the naval flows taking into account on a control room equipped with plants vhf, telex, oceanographic weather station and plants ais that allow the cover of the entire harbour area. the management of naval traffic is a complex matter also for those who have obtained the licence for the piloting. It is highly specialized staff, although there is no international legislation. for this reason the nations with remarkable marine tradition require very high standards of naval culture as well as a remarkable experience gained in the management and manoeuvre of naval units for the aspiring pilots. from here the need to have a new seat suitable and more efficient under the operational aspect.
the port we now see the conformation of the port of genova. There are 4 paddings with four entrance routes, 2 for east-west and 2 for north-south as well as a fifth mooring, the “discharging oil platform”, for the unloading of large tankers.
as in every port every ship coming in for obvious reasons to enter the port as soon as possible while on the contrary the one that has finished the loading/unloading operations, would like to sail as soon as possible. this because a firm ship does not produce wealth but represents only a cost (for example taxes). therefore the effectiveness of a port is measured by the speed with which the various operations are carried out. to avoid economic interests prevail over safety rules, there is no link between pilots and commercial activities of ships.

follow.. .

 

[Exatem]

follows:la soluzione?certainly a ship that at 3, 4 knots goes to slam against a land structure due to considerable damage to itself and to the dock, but to put in water a protective dock with the task of stopping a ship that risks to bump the tower, would mean drastically reduce the space for manoeuvres that 24 hours a day, for every day of the year, are executed in that area. the biggest mistake was perhaps not to consider the change of exit maneuver from a port probably "old" and that would need important works for safety. the solution would then have been to let the ships of prora out by directing them to the dove airport but it became indispensable to drag the seabed. the real reason why it has given up until now to this solution is that naval traffic would disturb that plane.

 

[marcof]

anti-realism: "a rampant phenomenon due to the increase in the frequency of situations in which people are forced to speak and have opinions in relation to subjects of which nothing knows." .

I had to google to figure out what you were talking about and that you were self-evident:http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthre...me-di-credenze&p=208046&viewfull=1#post208046I was in confusion because in the voice of anti-realism, doing the prudential duties and without deepening beyond, I had found well other concepts:http://wikipedia.sapere.virgilio.it/wikipedia/wiki/antirealismoSo, to understand, what did you mean or who did you mean?

la storia…to try to contain the phenomenon, I will try to make some clarity and explain what the activity of the pilot tower is and why It was built there, in the light of facts, It wasn't supposed to be.
(cutton)
the choice of the site where the new construction was a compulsory choice, dictated by the favorable position that would allow a complete vision of the harbour scenario. it was the only possible since no other part of the area met these requirements.

I focus on the juice of what you wrote, highlighting in bold some of your phrases that seem incongruent to me.
However, if it was the only possible choice then I must deduce that at this point the new pilot tower, because they will have to build a new one, will be exactly rebuilt where the one shot down by the ship was. not a metre further.
If they do it elsewhere, safe from accidents like what we discuss.. . Well, I'm just gonna ask for a resolute opinion on the wise man who has always worked on the toc mountain. he will be forced to have opinions in relation to subjects that nothing knows and while being a mountaineer who speaks of sea, I am sure that he will perfectly correct us and tell us who gave opinions or advice on topics that, evidently, he also did not know enough.

 

[cacciatorino]

.
However, if it was the only possible choice then I must deduce that at this point the new pilot tower, because they will have to build a new one, will be exactly rebuilt where the one shot down by the ship was. not a metre further.

They will do it there, but mounted on a windmill 20 meters high.

 

[Exatem]

I had to google to figure out what you were talking about and that you were self-evident:http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthre...me-di-credenze&p=208046&viewfull=1#post208046I was in confusion because in the voice of anti-realism, doing the prudential duties and without deepening beyond, I had found well other concepts:http://wikipedia.sapere.virgilio.it/wikipedia/wiki/antirealismoSo, to understand, what did you mean or who did you mean?

Well! but it is clear that it was self-harm. It seemed so obvious that I should not explain the meaning, I am now known to talk about things that I know nothing about.

I focus on the juice of what you wrote, highlighting in bold some of your phrases that seem incongruent to me.
However, if it was the only possible choice then I must deduce that at this point the new pilot tower, because they will have to build a new one, will be exactly rebuilt where the one shot down by the ship was. not a metre further.

There is no inconsistency, I said that in the light of what happened today is evident to all, even to the boscaiolo, that it should not be there, indeed perhaps it was enough that it moved a little... could make it a float... Who knows what will become a real lie.

If they do it elsewhere, safe from accidents like what we discuss.. . Well, I'm just gonna ask for a resolute opinion on the wise man who has always worked on the toc mountain. he will be forced to have opinions in relation to subjects that nothing knows and while being a mountaineer who speaks of sea, I am sure that he will perfectly correct us and tell us who gave opinions or advice on topics that, evidently, he also did not know enough.

another "anti-realist"? A mountain colleague?
Maybe then we're more than I thought.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

anti-realism: "a rampant phenomenon due to the increase in the frequency of situations in which people are forced to speak and have opinions in relation to subjects of which nothing knows." .

but do you think if the tower had been built ten meters further, reducing the view, and there had been a collision between two ships (like olbia) for a sighting error?
the wise man would certainly have said: "But that you imbeciles to put the tower pilots there, just put it a meter closer to the water to avoid this terrible disaster, but surely they preferred to do so to save on the structures that near the water would cost more".

and if, instead, built ten meters in, but five meters higher to have the same visual, had come down an earthquake? the wife of the boscayolo: "But what incompetent, what needed was such a high tower? It was enough to make it one meter further, close to the water and lower it. certainly there is the speculation of the mafias that earn us on every meter of concrete".

Perhaps the idea of the helical mollon is not wrong. Perhaps it would be even better to put the pilot tower on a hovercraft, at least if it is bumped it gently yields and moves further in there, just where the grove would have wanted to build it.

This discussion is becoming ridiculous. I would like to thank the rapporteur for his work. we would miss something else, it is the juice of individual freedom.

 

[MBT]

but do you think if the tower had been built ten meters further, reducing the view, and there had been a collision between two ships (like olbia) for a sighting error?
the wise man would certainly have said: "But that you imbeciles to put the tower pilots there, just put it a meter closer to the water to avoid this terrible disaster, but surely they preferred to do so to save on the structures that near the water would cost more".

and if, instead, built ten meters in, but five meters higher to have the same visual, had come down an earthquake? the wife of the boscayolo: "But what incompetent, what needed was such a high tower? It was enough to make it one meter further, close to the water and lower it. certainly there is the speculation of the mafias that earn us on every meter of concrete".

Perhaps the idea of the helical mollon is not wrong. Perhaps it would be even better to put the pilot tower on a hovercraft, at least if it is bumped it gently yields and moves further in there, just where the grove would have wanted to build it.

boscaiola quotation with mushrooms and bacon!

This discussion is becoming ridiculous. I would like to thank the rapporteur for his work. we would miss something else, it is the juice of individual freedom.

Since it is the right of all to make ridiculous statements, I say to you that I am right.
is going to end like the discussion about the earthquake of the exile, in which it is necessary at all costs to say that there is a guilty otherwise you do not know with who to piss and who to crucify

 

[Er Presidente]

follows:la soluzione?certainly a ship that at 3, 4 knots goes to slam against a land structure due to considerable damage to itself and to the dock, but to put in water a protective dock with the task of stopping a ship that risks to bump the tower, would mean drastically reduce the space for manoeuvres that 24 hours a day, for every day of the year, are executed in that area. the biggest mistake was perhaps not to consider the change of exit maneuver from a port probably "old" and that would need important works for safety. the solution would then have been to let the ships of prora out by directing them to the dove airport but it became indispensable to drag the seabed. the real reason why it has given up until now to this solution is that naval traffic would disturb that plane.

I insist, the old tower is still there and, now, after the disaster and still from there the pilots work.
the dock was there and the tower was absolutely safe, perhaps it was enough to avoid daring a position of the tower so exposed to gain a few meters of visibility.
I attach a photo that seems useful to me to understand the "dimensions" of the problem, according to you, objectively, that position is "useful", indispensable? seems like a boa put there to be "crazy".
Then if we want to open the chapter of the Genoese Airport, let's lose because it would be a shameful chapter given the past and accidents that occurred there.

p.s.: maybe I'll be boring but to shut down the "others" of "ridiculous" statements, it's just not that it helps to make the discussion serene. Anyway...free to.. .

 

[marcof]

but do you think if the tower had been built ten meters further, reducing the view, and there had been a collision between two ships (like olbia) for a sighting error?

You mean that?http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb...01/04/olbia-collisione-tra-due-traghetti.html

 

[numero1]

I insist, the old tower is still there and, now, after the disaster and still from there the pilots work.
the dock was there and the tower was absolutely safe, perhaps it was enough to avoid daring a position of the tower so exposed to gain a few meters of visibility.
I attach a photo that seems useful to me to understand the "dimensions" of the problem, according to you, objectively, that position is "useful", indispensable? seems like a boa put there to be "crazy".
Then if we want to open the chapter of the Genoese Airport, let's lose because it would be a shameful chapter given the past and accidents that occurred there.

p.s.: maybe I'll be boring but to shut down the "others" of "ridiculous" statements, it's just not that it helps to make the discussion serene. Anyway...free to.. .

Of course the old tower is still there, we would miss....
when the accident occurred were undergoing renovation work, which will now be accelerated so that the pilots take ownership of the structure as soon as possible; In fact from the photos of the disaster you can also see the old tower with the scaffolding in front.http://genova.repubblica.it/cronaca...i_trasferiscono_nella_vecchia_torre-59411897/Such work, I go to memory, had been requested by the superintendency.
and in this regard I have already explained in my post number 13 (with so much links) because the old turret could not be knocked down, unless to make a war with the superintendency itself.
and as beautiful as the old turret can only be a surrogate of the new, not because of its height.

 

[Er Presidente]

Of course the old tower is still there, we would miss....
when the accident occurred were undergoing renovation work, which will now be accelerated so that the pilots take ownership of the structure as soon as possible; In fact from the photos of the disaster you can also see the old tower with the scaffolding in front.http://genova.repubblica.it/cronaca...i_trasferiscono_nella_vecchia_torre-59411897/Such work, I go to memory, had been requested by the superintendency.
and in this regard I have already explained in my post number 13 (with so much links) because the old turret could not be knocked down, unless to make a war with the superintendency itself.
and as beautiful as the old turret can only be a surrogate of the new, not because of its height.

the "is still there" was not related to my wonder that there was still, it was only to state that it is still there to testify with its existence that perhaps a more secure position could be found.