Fulvio Romano
Guest
Sorry, you get me ignorant... :frown:
Exatem
Guest
This is news that you catch me unprepared...:4404:
KARL1
Guest
so it was not only a 'marin' problem but also a 'edile' concause.
and will also jump out the responsibilities of those who have 'designed' or the laws that allowed the building of the tower/office in such an unhappy position and so 'periculously' close to the dock.
The staff working in there always complained. Unfortunately they have never denounced black on white fear and their concerns.
Let us hope at least that 1) who has wrongly paid and that this tragic 'lection' is served and that 2) no longer repeat these tragedies announced.
and that they go to disassemble other towers dangerously close to docks if there are still... .
@ciao
and will also jump out the responsibilities of those who have 'designed' or the laws that allowed the building of the tower/office in such an unhappy position and so 'periculously' close to the dock.
The staff working in there always complained. Unfortunately they have never denounced black on white fear and their concerns.
Let us hope at least that 1) who has wrongly paid and that this tragic 'lection' is served and that 2) no longer repeat these tragedies announced.
and that they go to disassemble other towers dangerously close to docks if there are still... .
@ciao
Last edited by a moderator:
Er Presidente
Guest
Exatem
Guest
I purged your post from the typical sms subscriptions. this is a forum and language must be understandable, we do not need to contain the number of letters a few dozen (you have up to 10,000 characters per post).
coming to the post, you say who worked at the tower always complained, where?
there is the photo that annexed the president in the next post but... Can you tell us where to find these complaints?
but when the tower was "thought" maybe some giants did not evolve in that mirror.. .
the space is limited, it is the usual for decades but they build increasingly larger ships to increase revenues without thinking about the logistic difficulties. on the ports is not invested or at least, with an intolerable delay regarding what produced from the yards.
ships are made without predicting the difficulties of manoeuvre, of shelter in the basin for maintenance, of mooring, of transit. the seabeds in the ports of the cities are lowered while the larger ships fish more and more.
we ourselves have enormous difficulties in recovering the last units that "weigh too much" for our infrastructure.
but no one thinks or cares about this while money to modernize infrastructure is less and less.
enri
Guest
had been reported post on facebook I believe one of the victims in the newspapers, who emphasized fears, of the type: ". those ships so close. . "
Fulvio Romano
Guest
"It is inhuman to work every day at that height."
Exatem
Guest
that of the photo is the splendid msc, 333 m long, almost 38 wide and 60 high.
makes impressions also seen from the station of brignole.
enri
Guest
Well, even the black jolly is a skate though. fears were clear anyway.
Fulvio Romano
Guest
Yes, but what I want to say and, I think, even exatem, is that people are also afraid of chemical shales, complots, negative horoscope and prophecies of ourdamus. is not that because then to chelyabinsk falls a meteor one can say "you see? I said the Martians plot for the destruction of mankind."
when the titanic was launched, people were intimidated by its size, but what happened is technically defined by the employees of the trade "sphiga" and not "label error".
I don't know if I explained.
If the tower was designed badly it would come down to "a sigma" and not to "four sigma" as it happened. zero risk does not exist, cannot exist.
If the tower had been built three meters more in the maybe it would have come down the same because the fracture to the dock would have compromised its foundation.
If it had been built four meters more in it would have been saved by the black wildcard, and would have been knocked down by Grand Princess disco, which seems built specifically to demolish pilot towers.
If it had been built five meters further, it would have been saved by the grand princess, and would have been knocked down by the "mega princess", launched by the p&o yards in 2018.
If it had been built six meters further there would have been centered by two pipers sent by trash laden (bin in English means basket) to protest against the born.
Last edited by a moderator:
Er Presidente
Guest
the titanic was not intimidating for its size, all were fascinated, indeed they were fascinated by the chatter of the "experts", so expert to make it sink into the unaugral journey with 2500 "skeptics" on board, but the strikes were to norm and therefore exactly half of what they served, was a rule made by those who understood it and the count was "tot lance for tot
it took decades and a disaster to change the rule.
Now, let us hope, that by making buildings where people have to live and work we also take into account the protection of the maneuver of the ships that can happen in shooting.
I can't find a photo of the old pilot tower (which is still there) in "exercise", but I remember seeing one with a real pier in front, maybe they were wild and, of course, the new tower was beautiful.
But I remember that many years ago, more than twenty, a Korean superpetroleera just built, for a mistake in the connection of the controls, took off about twenty meters of pier after just moving in the wrong direction,
probably analyzing the cases of similar incidents in the past would not be difficult to think of a simple rule, the one that has always prevented the supernaves from enttrating in the ports by obliging the construction of expensive offshore docks and the construction of increasingly larger ports. Then, in a few years, everything has changed and can accommodate 150,000-ton cruise supernaves, why not accept green and black jolly?
Shall we exaggerate? Does it take a science to worry about the ability of these ships to resist bufere with sustained winds? but that fool, with the forecasts of today you avoid the burrasche, it is called active safety, we hope that an electric black-out not understood at the wrong time leaving the ship inerme for a few weeks (success this summer) in the wrong place.
But these are illations of poor ignorant,
the problem not the competence, is the greed of those who want to at all costs to make money by riding the tiger and giving some coward to those who distrust.
it took decades and a disaster to change the rule.
Now, let us hope, that by making buildings where people have to live and work we also take into account the protection of the maneuver of the ships that can happen in shooting.
I can't find a photo of the old pilot tower (which is still there) in "exercise", but I remember seeing one with a real pier in front, maybe they were wild and, of course, the new tower was beautiful.
But I remember that many years ago, more than twenty, a Korean superpetroleera just built, for a mistake in the connection of the controls, took off about twenty meters of pier after just moving in the wrong direction,
probably analyzing the cases of similar incidents in the past would not be difficult to think of a simple rule, the one that has always prevented the supernaves from enttrating in the ports by obliging the construction of expensive offshore docks and the construction of increasingly larger ports. Then, in a few years, everything has changed and can accommodate 150,000-ton cruise supernaves, why not accept green and black jolly?
Shall we exaggerate? Does it take a science to worry about the ability of these ships to resist bufere with sustained winds? but that fool, with the forecasts of today you avoid the burrasche, it is called active safety, we hope that an electric black-out not understood at the wrong time leaving the ship inerme for a few weeks (success this summer) in the wrong place.
But these are illations of poor ignorant,
the problem not the competence, is the greed of those who want to at all costs to make money by riding the tiger and giving some coward to those who distrust.
Last edited by a moderator:
Exatem
Guest
What else to add?
always reasoned with the hindsight but so it is too easy.
I said that you do tens of thousands of maneuvers and nothing has ever happened, then you put the case, the imperishment, the human error (which is always enslaved), the loser... And here's the disaster.
then everyone to look for the culprit without even knowing what it is about.
I personally heard a journalist hypothesize a sudden avary to the rudder of the wild but, and fulvio will confirm, at those speeds the action of the rudder is relative even if in the flow of the propeller. there is little portanza (because you are inverting the bike) and the rudder has a relative utility.
the ship has no propellers of maneuver.
is monoelica (and therefore cannot take advantage of the march back/back on two axes) and pulls one side. has an obsolete motorization even though sufficiently reliable that however that night "falls".
He has a commander who maybe realizes too late that he has an avary.
has two trailers that aren't there to pull it but to drive it.
has a pilot tower suddenly too close to the sea.. .
luck is blind but the loser sees us very well. . .
Last edited by a moderator:
Exatem
Guest
No ste. This time I disagree with you.
titanic was an unprecedented design effort but the rules of safety at sea were not those of today and were based on those of the time, devoid of experiences. I remember that titanic was the first ship to be equipped with a telegraphic station. Is there a ship without radio today?
Today, even as a result of that tragedy, no ship has a number of insufficient means of rescue for people who are boarded.
the disaster somehow served and that of genova will do just as much.
but until now it was a possibility considered perhaps impossible. Maybe even considered.
but to come to your "terrene".
how many aircraft passengers are provided with a parachute and instructions to use it?
And yet the arei fall more frequently than the ships.
Last edited:
numero1
Guest
I know a little of the ships, not as good as exa or lightning in any case.
I certainly know the "zone" of the incident better, and I am always + in agreement with exa and fulvio, in fact.
to all this I add the following link:http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb...5/21/oggi-la-torre-sarebbe-da-mettere-in.htmlthen everyone says what he wants to say, politely before you could inform about who is the person who speaks.
Thank you.
I certainly know the "zone" of the incident better, and I am always + in agreement with exa and fulvio, in fact.
to all this I add the following link:http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb...5/21/oggi-la-torre-sarebbe-da-mettere-in.htmlthen everyone says what he wants to say, politely before you could inform about who is the person who speaks.
Thank you.
Exatem
Guest
I am far from being an expert, but how much you posted comforts me. the infrastructures have not taken the step of shipbuilding.
the ships grow, the needs increase, the traffic increases, but the ports remain those of the last century.
Er Presidente
Guest
So if they put a pilot tower in the middle of the rade it would be too much to ask that it has around an islet to protect it? And why wouldn't it be normal to ask that the same tower has a minimum of protection inside a port?
I honestly don't see what's so sacrilege.
Er Presidente
Guest
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Exatem
Guest
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?
Exatem
Guest
the loser is in the contemporary of unpredictable events.