genoa tragedy

[numero1]

I don't think anyone here on the site spoke about it. So..........
So I allow myself to open this 3ad in the naval forum to commemorate the dead of this tragedy, thank you.
r.i.p.

 

[Exatem]

I don't think anyone here on the site spoke about it. So..........
So I allow myself to open this 3ad in the naval forum to commemorate the dead of this tragedy, thank you.
r.i.p.

I expected someone to open a discussion about this incredible tragedy sooner or later, but there are now too few elements to take a position.
the black wildcard is a portacontainer motorboat built in 1976 and belonging to a "float" of 9 twin units built for the maersk. 239,26m long (out of all) 30,50m wide and with a fishing of 9 m. in 1984 the ship was equipped with an additional aft superstructure to allow the load of rotabili means and the motorization with which it had initially been equipped with two general electric mst-14 steam turbines from 26.488 kw, were replaced by a two-stroke burmeister & wain diesel engine (copenaghen) from 289 palew.
we know that the ship, coming out from the port of genova and directed to napoli, while maneuvering coadjuved by two trailers, the "genua" and the "spagna", hit by lowering it, the 54 meters high pilot tower built in 1997 and causing the death of 9 people.
to a very general and summary analysis, I would propose for a combination of pilot error and mechanical avaria or at least, in a late response to the inversion command of the diesel motorcycle that must be stopped and rebooted.
an experienced motor colleague, tells me that an identical propeller used to equip a unit of our mm years ago. I see if I find any information about the operation of these machines.

As for the causes of the accident, we expect more information to be available.
I attach two photos: in one you see diesel engines of the same company and in the other is evident the zone of impact on the ship.

 

[enri]

what I have absolutely not understood, is the "useless" presence of the two trailers. I thought it was an immediate manoeuvre to stop the ship for a possible failure, often I see behind the cruise ships, for safety in case of failures. Regardless of the malfunction of the ship's engine, which at this point is secondary, is there an explanation for the failure of the trailers? exatem, do you have an idea?

 

[Exatem]

what I have absolutely not understood, is the "useless" presence of the two trailers. I thought it was an immediate manoeuvre to stop the ship for a possible failure, often I see behind the cruise ships, for safety in case of failures. Regardless of the malfunction of the ship's engine, which at this point is secondary, is there an explanation for the failure of the trailers? exatem, do you have an idea?

drawn from: Treaty of contractual liability.

"the extent of the effort that the trailer must exercise and its direction
is determined by the commander of the ship, who normally listens to it
the pilot's advice, as laid down in Article 92 of the navigation code,
suggests the route the commander and assists him in the determination of maneuvers
necessary to execute it. In fact, however, it is the pilot who dialogues with trailers
for radio and to which he gives orders.
the obligations of the trailer still consist in complying with the orders it receives from
ship and liability arises in the event of failure or delayed fulfillment of the orders received. "

in the port of genova take place about 14.000 maneuvers of entry and exit of the ships from cargo.
that carried out by the black joker Tuesday night is a maneuver considered routinely.
by order of the port captain, the manoeuvres of this type must be carried out by a pilot, deep connoisseur of the places, who climbs on board the ship and gives indications to the commander for navigation inside the port. to the helm there is always therefore either the commander or the helm of the ship.
the responsibility of the ship however remains always of the commander according to the code of navigation. the pilot of the port is held responsible in case of incorrect suggestions or indications. in the maneuvers, all carried out at minimum speed, the ship is helped by the trailers, one aft and one at the bow, with the task of pulling, braking, pushing the ship.
As for the black joker, it seems that at the time of the accident, the rudder was in the hands of the commander assisted by the pilot.
at the moment the hypothesis, still to be checked, is of an anger that would cause the blocking of the two engines at the time of the reverse of the motion, making it ungovernable.

 

[SHIREN]

Hello exa..........
the question arises spontaneously
If there wasn't the control tower what would have happened?
in the sense
who built the tower never thought that in such a manoeuvre a ship could go to him to fight?
or the maneuver is so sure and it's so easy
because there's the need for assistant pilot trailers to stop engines to reverse the direction of rotation
Perhaps it would be the case of listening to those who built the tower or who gave consent to its construction
always from the series "I love and look at the sea"
to napoli when merchant ships arrive or exit
in a larger area than genova
is visible and also palpable
even to those who are not practical
the difficulty of such maneuvers
I wish you a good weekend
Thank you

 

[enri]

I agree with shiren, in my opinion there is also responsibility for the collapsed buildings, in the calculation must be foreseen the scenario happened, as well as for the bridges. If a ship slams against the shoulder of a bridge, sinks the ship, the bridge does not collapse.

 

[SHIREN]

I agree with shiren, in my opinion there is also responsibility for the collapsed buildings, in the calculation must be foreseen the scenario happened, as well as for the bridges. If a ship slams against the shoulder of a bridge, sinks the ship, the bridge does not collapse.

hi arch....... .
if you see photo n°2 of the exa friend....... .
the ship has only a few scratches
but is tower and papier-mâché??? ? ? ? ? ?
Thank you

 

[enri]

to see the video, it seems she broke at the base, giving off of magic. so close to the ships the maneuver, you should predict such a scenario.

 

[Exatem]

Hello exa..........
the question arises spontaneously
If there wasn't the control tower what would have happened?
in the sense
who built the tower never thought that in such a manoeuvre a ship could go to him to fight?
or the maneuver is so sure and it's so easy
because there's the need for assistant pilot trailers to stop engines to reverse the direction of rotation
Perhaps it would be the case of listening to those who built the tower or who gave consent to its construction
always from the series "I love and look at the sea"
to napoli when merchant ships arrive or exit
in a larger area than genova
is visible and also palpable
even to those who are not practical
the difficulty of such maneuvers
I wish you a good weekend
Thank you

Hi, shi.
as I said before in that area take place about 14,000 maneuvers per year and the ships are made from time to time larger while the ports remain equal.
that it is not simple mamovre is clear but pilots and trailers have experience to sell.
I don't know, before I issue judgments, I'd expect some more precise news.

I agree with shiren, in my opinion there is also responsibility for the collapsed buildings, in the calculation must be foreseen the scenario happened, as well as for the bridges. If a ship slams against the shoulder of a bridge, sinks the ship, the bridge does not collapse.

once they were bought huge yokohama parabords. a high officer looking at them said all satisfied "this is that they are done well, if a ship hits us against heat they notice" (parabords).
sin that in this case the damage would suffer the ship which would be much more expensive than risky.
I mean, I don't think the piers should pose a threat to the gagability of a ship.

hi arch....... .
if you see photo n°2 of the exa friend....... .
the ship has only a few scratches
but is tower and papier-mâché??? ? ? ? ? ?
Thank you

I'll get you another picture where you see better.

to see the video, it seems she broke at the base, giving off of magic. so close to the ships the maneuver, you should predict such a scenario.

I don't know. I am not a building and I do not know the norms (if there are) that regulate this kind of construction even if I think it has "failed" too easily.

this is the address of a republican animation:http://video.repubblica.it/edizione/genova/genova-la-manovra-in-porto-della-jolly-nero/127752/126253this is the current position of the black wildhttp://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/it...=8.9305&centery=44.39633&zoom=10&type_color=7

 

[Cristallo]

, in the calculation must be foreseen the scenario happened, as well as for the bridges. If a ship slams against the shoulder of a bridge, sinks the ship, the bridge does not collapse.

the ship has only a few scratches
but is tower and papier-mâché??? ? ? ? ? ?

to see the video, it seems she broke at the base, giving off of magic. so close to the ships the maneuver, you should predict such a scenario.

Gentlemen, you can't structurally predict such a scenario. Maybe it was wrong the point where it stood (leaving 2-3 m more the ship would beat the dock not the tower), but you can't think of calculating that structure by imagining that one day you will enter 17,000 or 40,000 tons (black wildness) to 4m from the base. Probably not even if it was a single block of concrete, it would have stood up.
Imagine a bullet splitting the bowling ball when it covers it
Imagine a tir that arrives without brakes at the highway tolls (even at only 20km/h)... the small case of the omino destroys the tir and the omino goes unharmed? We're different.
but perhaps to someone "piceva" a 50m tower at peak on the port. sometimes the aesthetic sense prevails on the real purpose of constructionhttp://www.google.it/imgres?client=...bnh=168&tbnw=248&start=0&ndsp=24&tx=137&ty=93building it 3 meters more inside would not have changed anything in terms of visibility and would have repaired it from any accidents.

 

[enri]

bè volendo there are many ways to avoid such a thing, including building it more in there. Of course an account is the pylon of a bridge, an account two palaces and a tower, you do not have all the twists, you could not build them in solid steel, but also to me it seems that everything came down easily, at that speed a ship of that stazza does not enter for meters and meters, a solution could be found,...even if with the sin of then it is too easy, I realize it.

I look at the picture now of how it was, I didn't think it was like this outside the dock! It's practically in the water! I thought it was on a backward pier. at this point the solution was certainly not the sizing, but the position, in short, put between a ship and those construction a space, a pier, a "cuscinetto" to protect them.

 

[Exatem]

bè volendo there are many ways to avoid such a thing, including building it more in there. Of course an account is the pylon of a bridge, an account two palaces and a tower, you do not have all the twists, you could not build them in solid steel, but also to me it seems that everything came down easily, at that speed a ship of that stazza does not enter for meters and meters, a solution could be found,...even if with the sin of then it is too easy, I realize it.

I look at the picture now of how it was, I didn't think it was like this outside the dock! It's practically in the water! I thought it was on a backward pier. at this point the solution was certainly not the sizing, but the position, in short, put between a ship and those construction a space, a pier, a "cuscinetto" to protect them.

Yeah, but this one with the hind...

How many years are the tower there?
from 1997 to today are 16 years that multiplied by 14000 maneuvers a year ago 224,000 maneuvers.
How many times did a ship destroy the tower?
predicting such a condition will result in presurgency or paranormality.
certainly from now on they will build retrospective towers compared to the docks.
but it is as if a boeing landed on the control tower of an airport. Has it ever happened?
in this site:http://www.scmncamogli.org/oldsite/torrepiloti/ntorre_sag.htmdescribes the construction of the tower and some history on the port of genova.
It's interesting.

 

[numero1]

in fact it is as if a boeing etc. etc.
I only allow myself to add one thing, in the link posted by you exatem, this:http://www.scmncamogli.org/oldsite/torrepiloti/ntorre_sag.htmyou can also see the penultimate tower of the pilots that designed in 1928 and finished in 1931, just scroll a little.
Now if you look here:http://www.google.it/imgres?client=...bnh=168&tbnw=248&start=0&ndsp=24&tx=137&ty=93which is then the crystal link, what do you see?
behind the tower that collapsed, you see that right there...... .
I do not want to give judgments on anyone but if it is true that between the old tower and the sea there was a minimum of space, it is also true that the new "where" was built + ahead, as behind there is no + place, because in the meantime between huts, remittances of boats and basins the port went ahead.
Well then we destroy the old turret and we make the new there' !!! impossible.
in fact it has been under the protection of superintendency for years, as it is shown from here:http://genova.repubblica.it/cronaca...rete_infuria_la_polemica_sull_opera-58541899/and you return to the point before ....... is as if a boeing etc. etc.
Perhaps (and I say perhaps) the only one would be to extend the dock, but thus remove the precious space to the ships, and then (only after) build on this extension.

 

[PierArg]

I expected someone to open a discussion about this incredible tragedy sooner or later. .

I was really waiting for you to open it, that you are the expert:tongue:

Gentlemen, you can't structurally predict such a scenario. perhaps it was wrong the point where it stood (leaving 2-3 m more the ship would beat the dock not the tower). .

quoto!
I don't want to look like the classic person who wants to do the savory after things have already happened but I think the position of the tower is completely wrong.

But who designed that tower? Are we crazy?!? But the job managers were joking? or were they drunk?
It is not that it is a question of putting a tower in the middle of a desolate plain!
We're talking about a port, not a square!

 

[PierArg]

How many years are the tower there?
from 1997 to today are 16 years that multiplied by 14000 maneuvers a year ago 224,000 maneuvers.
How many times did a ship destroy the tower?

I would look at it differently: at the first mistake the tower came down.

by making a simple calculation means that there was 0% margin of error, in fact there was not a catastrophe (a ship mad at high speed) but it was enough only that the ship leaned.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

I would look at it differently: at the first mistake the tower came down.

you say that in 224,000 exatem says no mistake has happened?
Goddamn, those of the port of Genoa are magicians. Hundreds of people at work and zero mistakes 16 years? I thought I was the only one with this average of mistakes.. .

Ah... Even the pedestrian stripes are in the middle of the streets. Are we crazy? in the middle of the road?? with cars that rub at 50km/h? but can't you do sub-passes like you normally do in stations to switch from one track to another?
Not at all, there are hundreds of deaths a day, right?

 

[PierArg]

the pedonal strips are in the middle of the road because it is necessary that it is so: they are made to cross.

the tower, if they had made it 3 meters back, would not have lost its functionality.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

the pedonal strips are in the middle of the road because it is necessary that it is so: they are made to cross.

the tower, if they had made it 3 meters back, would not have lost its functionality.

Is that enough?
Are you sure?
and if the fuchsia jolly, three meters longer than the sister "red", has the same problem to the engines?

Do we make four that we are quieter? Or maybe ten? or thirty? When does the tower lose its functionality?
I ask you, eh, because I don't know.

 

[PierArg]

Do we make four that we are quieter? Or maybe ten?

Mah, at spanne 5 I would say:wink:

I'm kidding. I think it was necessary to consider not to put it on the dock.

 

[numero1]

Mah, at spanne 5 I would say:wink:

I'm kidding. I think it was necessary to consider not to put it on the dock.

I mean...
It's like the airport control tower puts you in the middle of the city.

I don't want to make any arguments, for charity, but the pilot control tower of a port where it has to stay if not on one of the docks of the port itself?
then, for the rest, we can talk about distances, protections, ....... etc. etc.
Hi.