genoa tragedy

[Fulvio Romano]

the tower had been inaugurated in 1997 (on the net there are numerous confirmations).

the question is not whether the tower had to be there or not. The fact is that there was and a ship, for some reason to define, it ended on us. the choice of the place where to erect such construction is a decision dating back to 30 years ago, called by the same harbour operators, with different traffic conditions and with different ships, in a port, that to the current state, denounces a conformation almost "difficult".

no, wait, if in 1999 there was a "analogue" incident* and not only the tower did not come down, but it did not even notice the risk, the fact could prove that the position is not absurd, but at the limit demonstrably wrong. as to say, if I fall off the bike and do nothing, then another falls off the bike and dies you can not say "that imbeciles, the airbag technology exists, because they have not installed it on the bike". affirmation instead possible in the case of cars, where an impact has statistically more devastating effects.
I don't know if with this example I have clarified what I wanted to say or made even more confusion. .

(*)
I say "analogue" between quotes, because I don't know what kind of accident there was. Maybe it was a shocked skate on the rocks, and so it doesn't text, or maybe it was a bigger ship than the black wild, and instead it does text.

 

[Exatem]

I allow myself to disagree with this approach. Technically, it is relevant to me, even the location of the tower and its protection from accidental impacts.
the fact that it has been there for 30 years does not justify its position, the fact that the position has been asked by the operators is still less important, I do not feel that security must respond to the demands of the quota operators.
the fact, fundamental, that the port is not adapted to the new realities and certainly true but is not ineluctable, it would be enough to act accordingly.
I would just like to point out that the ship was not new and that ships of that size already existed at the time of the project of the tower, so the problem could be obvious even then.
It is clear that in the face of such distant positions it has been forced to argue in a repeated and thorough way but, personally, it seems to me that this is the purpose of a forum, exchange opinions and information.

while respecting the opinions different from mine (I find that the analysis should be on the causes of the air), I wanted to add something about the speech "position of the tower".
that it was in a position that required a form of protection, in light of what happened, it is a certain, undeniable data.
of why it was chosen this position seems to have repeated it until exhaustion but I want to add a news that perhaps the most has escaped.
the constraints imposed by the superintendency prevented the demolition of the old seat. It became mandatory to build an ex-new structure moving towards the sea.

the question therefore is: was it absolutely necessary to go so forward?

if you keep in mind the conformation of the port (how many users who read there have ever been?), the construction of the superbacino in the 70s, the realization of the industrial pole of the mid-1980s, the answer is yes.

pushing so forward was a necessity.
Then perhaps the superintendency that to safeguard a cultural heritage (?) has imposed wrongly revealed choices.
affirm that safety must respond to the demands of operators is a force.
the position of the tower had to respond to the demands of the operators. how to accomplish it is someone else's task.

for those who hypothesize the closure of the port of genova for "manifesta inadequacy", I remember only that the port of genova is the largest industrial and commercial port of Italy and is placed at the levels of marquetry and barcelona for supremacy in the Mediterranean.
I also say this at the expense of my city which would probably draw enormous economic advantages from the closure of genova.

in conclusion it seems to take more and more body the hypothesis of the air to propulsion.
the commander of the Spanish trailer would shout to the pilot via radio: "There is no more water, what are you doing?"
the pilot to this warning reply: "I don't have the machine" whose meaning is that you couldn't reverse the bike (technical start).

at that time the rotation of the ship was in place in the basin of evolution, but the "mote back" was not stopped.
when the ship arrived about 100 meters from the tower, from the stern trailer, sponge, the alarm started. the cargo, in that phase displaced about 45 thousand tons and proceeded to 3,5 knots of speed in respect of the rules of maneuver.
the trailers, the spagna has a tow of 72 tons while the genoa 60 tonn. and they have the task to turn the ship.
are not enough to stop it in a few meters in case of avaria.

 

[Er Presidente]

...that it was in a position that required a form of protection, in light of what happened, it is a certain, undeniable data.

It seems to me that perhaps improperly and incompetently but, basically it was what various users claimed before my intervention. logic can make sense even regardless of specific technical skills.

of why it was chosen this position seems to have repeated it until exhaustion but I want to add a news that perhaps the most has escaped.
the constraints imposed by the superintendency prevented the demolition of the old seat. It became mandatory to build an ex-new structure moving towards the sea.

This, for example, is a real problem, security cannot be subject to anyone.

the question therefore is: was it absolutely necessary to go so forward?

if you keep in mind the conformation of the port (how many users who read there have ever been?), the construction of the superbacino in the 70s, the realization of the industrial pole of the mid-1980s, the answer is yes.

I don't go into the merits because this is a technical evaluation that needs objective and certain elements, but I have some doubt that there was no alternative that, perhaps at the expense of a few meters of visibility, could not guarantee greater security. but this is a simple illation.

pushing so forward was a necessity.
Then perhaps the superintendency that to safeguard a cultural heritage (?) has imposed wrongly revealed choices.

matched.

affirm that safety must respond to the demands of operators is a force.
the position of the tower had to respond to the demands of the operators. how to accomplish it is someone else's task.

That's what I'm sharing. airport operators (perdominate me the dart) would like the tower under the back of the hostesses but there are regulations that prevent it, in fact the visibility from the towers in case of bad weather is supported by the technology ( parking radar).

for those who hypothesize the closure of the port of genova for "manifesta inadequacy", I remember only that the port of genova is the largest industrial and commercial port of Italy and is placed at the levels of marquetry and barcelona for supremacy in the Mediterranean.
I also say this at the expense of my city which would probably draw enormous economic advantages from the closure of genova.

sincerely my intervention was directed to criticize the existence of the airport that if it prevents the port to function as it must, with the second active channel, it would be closed tomorrow morning without any remote, or however to make it "servant" to the needs of the port.

in conclusion it seems to take more and more body the hypothesis of the air to propulsion.
the commander of the Spanish trailer would shout to the pilot via radio: "There is no more water, what are you doing?"
the pilot to this warning reply: "I don't have the machine" whose meaning is that you managed to reverse the bike (technical start).

at that time the rotation of the ship was in place in the basin of evolution, but the "mote back" was not stopped.
when the ship arrived about 100 meters from the tower, from the stern trailer, sponge, the alarm started. the cargo, in that phase displaced about 45 thousand tons and proceeded to 3,5 knots of speed in respect of the rules of maneuver.
the trailers, the spagna has a tow of 72 tons while the genoa 60 tonn. and they have the task to turn the ship.
are not enough to stop it in a few meters in case of avaria.

question from neophyte: With 60 ton towing how much ship can you pick up?
The point of the trailers, for me, is fundamental. in the light of the general situation, motorization of the ship, necessity of maneuver, available spaces, put in the field only the necessary trailers to "rotation" and not to the tow, personally, I consider it a mistake.

 

[Er Presidente]

no, wait, if in 1999 there was a "analogue" incident* and not only the tower did not come down, but it did not even notice the risk, the fact could prove that the position is not absurd, but at the limit demonstrably wrong. as to say, if I fall off the bike and do nothing, then another falls off the bike and dies you can not say "that imbeciles, the airbag technology exists, because they have not installed it on the bike". affirmation instead possible in the case of cars, where an impact has statistically more devastating effects.
I don't know if with this example I have clarified what I wanted to say or made even more confusion. .

(*)
I say "analogue" between quotes, because I don't know what kind of accident there was. Maybe it was a shocked skate on the rocks, and so it doesn't text, or maybe it was a bigger ship than the black wild, and instead it does text.

That's what I found, maybe the person gets confused with dates, but it shouldn't be hard to trace the facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jbxr_mnldo

 

[Exatem]

...domanda da neofita: With 60 ton towing how much ship can you pick up?
The point of the trailers, for me, is fundamental. in the light of the general situation, motorization of the ship, necessity of maneuver, available spaces, put in the field only the necessary trailers to "rotation" and not to the tow, personally, I consider it a mistake.

will also be neophyte but finally it is a technical question.

with 60 ton towing to the hook, you can tow. . 60 tons. beyond the hook opens and you lose the trailer.

I try to explain.
each ship was born with its own resistance to the advance that is concaused of many factors (I had explained it above and under the waves).
I make a brief summary.
the resistance to progress is given by the sum of the friction component due to the wet surface of famine, wave resistance and to a lesser extent to other causes such as famine appendages etc.
each ship has its own series of trailer experiences attached to the famine sheet. is in the naval tank (insean a roma) that these experiments are made.
This means that it is not the displacement of the ship to determine its resistance to advancement. in other words, ships from the same displacement can have resistance to the trailer very different.
Now I don't know the data about the wildcard's hull but be careful.
the tug commander did not say that he could not pull the jolly but rather, that he could not win the drunk in so little space that is quite different.
If not I have been sufficiently clear to ask as well.

 

[Cristallo]

Now I don't know the data about the wildcard's hull but be careful.
the tug commander did not say that he could not pull the jolly but rather, that he could not win the drunk in so little space that is quite different.
If not I have been sufficiently clear to ask as well.

if I understood correctly, the tug commander would have managed to deviate the ship (winning the abbreviation) but if he had had more time available (60 ton for 3 minutes is well different from 60ton for 60 minutes).
but in those 60 minutes necessary to the tug to win the drunk, how much free water would it have happened to the ship? water that was not there.
Do I understand?

 

[Exatem]

if I understood correctly, the tug commander would have managed to deviate the ship (winning the abbreviation) but if he had had more time available (60 ton for 3 minutes is well different from 60ton for 60 minutes).
but in those 60 minutes necessary to the tug to win the drunk, how much free water would it have happened to the ship? water that was not there.
Do I understand?

It is not a matter of time but of space (although then the two things are closely related).
the tug commander, if he had received the order from board to the wild (not on his own initiative), and had had enough water, he could have stopped the ship. Now I can't tell how many meters it would be, I don't know the data about the hull and without that one can't assume anything.
keep in mind that during the normal trailer ahead, the trailers are at least 2. a tow and the other brakes therefore the trailers never tow ships to the limit of their ability, indeed. the towed weight must be added the contrary action of the stern trailer.

An example of how the working conditions can change unexpectedly. years ago, a trailer was dragging a ship to the demolition. the trailer was more than enough to pick up the wreck, but during the night the sea grew up and the conditions of trailer worsened drastically to the point that the "towed weight" exceeded the specifications and the hook opened. the wreck abandoned to himself, took water and sank.
now it is 400 meters on the bottom of the Tyrrhenian.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

if I understood correctly, the tug commander would have managed to deviate the ship (winning the abbreviation) but if he had had more time available (60 ton for 3 minutes is well different from 60ton for 60 minutes).
but in those 60 minutes necessary to the tug to win the drunk, how much free water would it have happened to the ship? water that was not there.
Do I understand?

It's very difficult to answer. even knowing the forms of hull and wave resistance, because if the ship was turning on itself, I dare you to calculate the cross section.
We could make an energy budget, but we would have a very careful result, as if the ship was in the sidereal space, in the absence of any type of friction.
It's soon said.
the acceleration, equal to f/m will be 600kn/40t = 1.5e-2 m/s^2
the stop time is v/a = 1.8/1.5*10^2 = 120s (two minutes)
the space route is (from the hourly equations) 108 meters before the ship stops.

to this it is necessary to add that "help" at least water and other trailer.

 

[Er Presidente]

will also be neophyte but finally it is a technical question.

with 60 ton towing to the hook, you can tow. . 60 tons. beyond the hook opens and you lose the trailer.

I try to explain.
each ship was born with its own resistance to the advance that is concaused of many factors (I had explained it above and under the waves).
I make a brief summary.
the resistance to progress is given by the sum of the friction component due to the wet surface of famine, wave resistance and to a lesser extent to other causes such as famine appendages etc.
each ship has its own series of trailer experiences attached to the famine sheet. is in the naval tank (insean a roma) that these experiments are made.
This means that it is not the displacement of the ship to determine its resistance to advancement. in other words, ships from the same displacement can have resistance to the trailer very different.
Now I don't know the data about the wildcard's hull but be careful.
the tug commander did not say that he could not pull the jolly but rather, that he could not win the drunk in so little space that is quite different.
If not I have been sufficiently clear to ask as well.

Okay, it's so easy on the hook of a road trailer like philosophy. What I'm asking is not a precise shit. I just needed to get an idea of the order of magnitude.

 

[Exatem]

Okay, it's so easy on the hook of a road trailer like philosophy. What I'm asking is not a precise shit. I just needed to get an idea of the order of magnitude.

all ships have a trailer hook.
but not being trailers, their "tiro" is considerably lower if compared to the size.
I go to memory for which powers to be wrong but a 25,000 ton ship like the cauliur, has a 20 ton shot, maybe 25.
logically for a carrier give trailer is an emergency and temporary situation.
In short, the trailers are "small but bad"!

 

[Er Presidente]

will these be reliable?

http://www.informare.it/news/gennews/2013/20130730-assologistica-esorta-governo-occuparsi-adeguamento-infrastrutturale-porti.asp

 

[Er Presidente]

without knowing anything and without knowledge of cause, so extensively, I would say that those who made the project of this tower thought about how to try to protect it.
It is not said that if it is invested by a nuclear carrier, it remains standing, but to the relatives of any victims, it could be said, with reason, to have at least tried.
The question you should always answer who makes security is always that, did you do everything possible to avoid the event?

 

[Er Presidente]

even if I have seen a port only from google, it seems to me that even this realization allows a minimum defense to the tower.

 

[Er Presidente]

This does not seem evil to me, always ignorantly and without wanting to be sentient.

 

[Er Presidente]

I don't mind that, too.

 

[Er Presidente]

a real pearl of wisdom, but these have space and money in vagonate.

 

[Er Presidente]

This, always ignorantly, I could consider it unprotected, but perhaps it must not oversee an international port and however its little bit of pier has it, perhaps under the fur of the water will be an artificial cliff that widens the protection, can not be said.

 

[Er Presidente]

all ships have a trailer hook.
but not being trailers, their "tiro" is considerably lower if compared to the size.
I go to memory for which powers to be wrong but a 25,000 ton ship like the cauliur, has a 20 ton shot, maybe 25.
logically for a carrier give trailer is an emergency and temporary situation.
In short, the trailers are "small but bad"!

but would it be theoretically possible to rule a ship from 140.000 ton with the only trailers and how many would it serve?

 

[Exatem]

but would it be theoretically possible to rule a ship from 140.000 ton with the only trailers and how many would it serve?

I obviously didn't explain.
does not count the disintegration (the weight for us) of a ship or at least, counts for the amount of dive that causes the ship. .
counts its resistance to the trailer that is not dependent on displacement but mainly from the friction that the hull meets the advance.
This friction depends on the forms of hull that are collected in series and of which, the characteristics are charted.
depends on the wave resistance caused by the wave that the ship creates during the advance but that in case of nodeste speed can be overlooked.
depends on the famine appendages and their position (thymns, stabilizing fins, propellers... )
depends on the cleaning of the hull, i.e. on how much the hull has not been placed in the basin and clean it from the intersections (a factor far from negligible).
depends on the surface exposed to the wind, the force of the wind and its direction.
depends on the dive (the more the hull is immersed, the greater the wet surface.
depends on a lot of things.

Otherwise you wouldn't explain how you "park" this lady with a little wide hips.
p.s. beautiful photo collection.. .

 

[Exatem]

will these be reliable?

http://www.informare.it/news/gennews/2013/20130730-assologistica-esorta-governo-occuparsi-adeguamento-infrastrutturale-porti.asp

I seemed to have said that the port of genova did not grow at the same pace to the size of the ships and to the traffic but maybe I just dreamed of it.