thank you Chief for your knowledge and the patience to clearly teach us the fact on ship operations. We don't realize how much of our modern life relies on the steady operation of these ships!
The thing that is really nice about these videos, quite apart from the fact that you clearly know what you are talking about, is the fact that you don't play the part of a smart arse, heaping blame on the crew and saying how you could have done it better. Quite the opposite, you explain the difficulties they face and explain their predicament very fairly and sensibly. Very refreshing :-)
I love the idea of the captain contacting the ER to regain power. What the F**K (and I’ve seen this) do you think the CE is doing??? I once had a master ask me if I was trying to extinguish an engine room fire. Whilst I was trying to extinguish the same. 😳 This one of the best channels on maritime subjects Follow. 👍
Yeah, I had this thought too. When Chief said that the captain would "tell the engineers to restore power immediately," I wondered if there has even been a case where the engineering crew were standing around in the control room, saying, "What should we do?" "I dunno, let's wait for the captain to call and see what he thinks should we should do."
@@Curt_Sampson In my time in the Army, I did encounter 1 soldier in my whole unit who was like that. Wouldn't do anything, unless a Sergent told him to do something. No one else. Had to be an NCO or officer. If another solder said something, he would ignore them. He didn't get far in the unit.
Similar incident for me many years ago. I told the old man on the phone that I was working on restoring power and to stop calling down here because I was busy working on it and didn't have time to stop and answer multiple calls. I said it would go a lot faster if he stopped and I would call him when I finished. He stopped calling after that and let me get on with my job. It actually humbled him a bit at that moment. Power was restored and I think he gained a better understanding of our world down there and a bit more appreciation for our knowledge and dedication to our work.
Navy ship's Captains do exactly the same things, as if when main power drops out the skipper thinks ChEng is standing around with a finger up his nose. Skippers who were Chief Engineers earlier in their careers are just as bad.
Thats the reason why it should be compulsory to be trained both as a deck and engine officer. At least a decent amount of time. This case you know hats going on in the other department and are not going to make these stupid calls.
Some years ago I had a friend who was Chief Engineer on a refrigerated ship. They had bow thrusters as they had to load in some 'interesting' ports. He made the point that the thrusters consume a lot of power, so when they were in use the fridge had to be turned off. In any case, the bow thruster will have to be working pretty hard to have much effect on something the size of a 30 or 40 storey office block. Inertia is always going to win here.
The environment will have a few things to say about it too, winds and currents or tides can and do push even the biggest and most powerful ships around like toys.
0:14 There are certain rules with regads to movies: - soldiers don't watch war movies - pilots don't watch airplane crash movies - seafarers don't watch movies with lots of shipping in it.
Which explains why history keeps repeating itself. ie: Sunshine Skyway Bridge accident 44 years ago. "If you don't learn what caused a previous accident you are apt to repeat it". If federally mandated laws, safety regulations and protocol were followed, this 100% preventable incident would not have happened.
@@amarsekhar-rv8vd I agree. If you are a first responder, Dr, builder, or auto manufacturer, etc. WeEARN from previous mistakes/weak links that caused a problem(theoretically) so we may produce a safer/ better product, service or cause of action. A child or animal learns from trial and error. Football players study seemingly endless film to better their game. Only a fool would ignore mistakes hence will repeat them.
I have been waiting for you to address this because all the other maritime channels go off the deep end and get to technical and confusing when I was looking for a basic explanation.
Thanks for that Chief... I was wondering why they didn't use the bow thruster, since it showed available under the use able power bus... But this makes sense that the speed was not conducive to being usable..
thank you for being short and concise, and not trying to make a 25m dawn-of-time anthology about everything that was ever tangentially related to bow thrusters.
It also doesn’t work when the power is off - it needs three megawatts of power from the high voltage bus but is controlled by the low voltage bus powered controls.
@@allangibson8494That's the most misunderstood point. The controls are operated from the low voltage bus. No LV, no controls. However comma, was not the emergency generator feeding the LV/control bus? And Chief Makoi points out the ineffectiveness of tge bow thrusters at speed.
@@The_DuMont_Network The Emergency generator feeds a SUBSET of the controls (ie enough to troubleshoot the cause of failure with the assumption that you won’t be hitting a bridge in two minutes) - and was probably designed on the assumption that if the main generators were offline the bow thruster didn’t have power anyway. That said, a UPS on the bridge controls would seem to be a “good idea”. Some ships do have fully redundant propulsion and control (ie some more modern LNG tankers (where a similar oopsy would have taken out the entire city (think Hiroshima sized fuel air explosion)).
@@allangibson8494 That's exactly right, they're not going to run 6600 volts to any controls. Imagine the arc flash hazard if there was a short somewhere. Ever seen what was left of a squirrel climbing up a power pole to a transformer HV bushing? It goes BANG.
While it seems obvious, but hearing that the engineers would not be aware of what is occurring outside the ship helps understanding what was happening. They would know they were still in the harbor, and that was enough to get their full attention on restoring operation immediately.
Yea but if they don't turn and turn while under water, how do you build suspense? But it's weird that the ship would finally crash into a pier and then the anchor would drop on someone's luxury car. If Chief Makoi was the protagonist in Speed 2, he'd stop the ship fast enough that there wouldn't be a movie, because there's no way an engine will keep running and running when no one's in the engine room to keep the oil pumping, the engine cool, electrical power flowing and all that. Really all that's really needed to stop the boat is just shut off the cooling water, oil, or whatever. The main engine would seize up and the main propeller wouldn't turn at all. No need to try to jam up the propeller with ropes or whatever, or even drop anchor to try and stop the ship. Actually I'm sure those marine engines have fire suppression systems. Trigger them and the main engine can't turn. There's also the engine's air supply fans, turn those off, and the engine can't run. Or really, just do nothing for a couple of hours and I'm sure the main engine would stop on its own. No way any computer hacking would make a ship run automatically, at least not back in those days. Ship has crews because they need them to keep the ship afloat. Heck even just flooding some ballast would likely slow the ship down enough to where no amount of engine power would make it go after than a couple of knots. Also copper poisoning? Didn't even know it was a thing.
I should also mention, the bad guy in Speed 2 would likely take Chief Makoi out before doing his computer lockout, as the chief would figure out how to basically destroy the engine to stop the ship. However without the chief and his engineers, the ship wouldn't go far before something forced the engine to stop, and the plan is foiled.
@@ChiefMAKOi Getting a response makes it all that better 👍. Ya you gotta like the movies. Here in the real world it's not at all like that with alot of things. Looking forward to the next one. No pressure lol. 👍🇨🇦🔧
My parents had a share in a barge in France. The bow thruster controls were not even on the main control panel at the helm, and I was told not to use them. Once, when everyone was taking a nap, I gave them try. 150 ton displacement, (a converted coal barge), at 6 knots down a straight, 2 minutes of bow thrusters before dad came up to tell me off, made no difference to our direction of travel. It did get me off driving the boat for 3 days though.
Very nice time lapse of passing through the Suzi Canal at the end of your presentation. Thank you for explaining things in detail that a lay person (non seafarer) could understand.
Good video as always. Just to explain a little bit from a ship's Master's point of view, the reason that a bow thruster loses effectiveness as a vessel gains speed, is that the pivot point of the ship moves forward. At anything but very slow speeds, a ship's pivot point (the center that the ship rotates around when turning) is well forward (roughly two third of the waterline length), which means that the bow thruster has a very short lever arm to turn the vessel, when compared to the ship's rudder. At 6.5 kts, the bow thruster's effect on the ship's direction would be negligible. Well done chief!
hello sir chief! I've been following your case study in regards to M/v Dali's allision incident although it may be opinionated, however with credible and reliable sources/articles as reference, it all make sense! i am from Deck dept. yet I've watch must of your videos! truly you never disappoints your followers/viewers! God speed sir chief!
What you told at the end makes the most sense, bowtrusters don't work at any speed forwards. It only works when you are making no speed.. I have two vessels, one with a bowtruster, (12 meter vessel, 8 ps thruster) and it don't simply works on speed. (the other is a seagoing almost 80 years former fishingvessel where we live on)
Very well explained, thanks. I wonder if from now on, large ships, such as the unfortunate Dali, will be required to have tug assist until well and clear underway.
Love your show. Thank you for the content. It is fascinating to hear about the nuts & bolts of some of the things we hear about from so many sources. I'm really enjoying it.
Thanks Chief MAKOi for taking the time and coming up with both very professional and logical explanation about procedures in such emergency case; fully makes sense. Chief `Steam man´ brought up an interesting point in a chat with you in your YT video “Explaining the NTSB report …”, mentioning “bow thruster stop time” (i.e. after having moved away from the pier and the 180° turn); and made some connection to the issues with the diesel generators (DGRs). To me is good thought & approach also to look into electrical `load drops´, not only jumps with load increase. We can strongly assume preliminary NTSB report so far only included topics which are waterproof already. I’ve spent quite some thoughts about it. On the one hand I don’t want to bother you with lengthy comment and things you anyway know much better than me, but it might be interesting; also for other people following this incident. Let me describe a scenario I could imagine here, trying to put various pieces of the puzzle together (based on videos, AIS data and NTSB report; plus technical discussions). When leaving the pier, MV Dali made this 180° turn. Besides support from the tugs, I’d strongly assume bow thruster has been used, too. Both AIS data and NTSB report show speed was already above 5 knots when going `straight ahead´ on main channel. Now, with bow thruster being much less / not effective at this speed, there’s “plenty of time” to stop operation of the bow thruster. So pilots (and captain) might have ordered its stop at some point moving along the main channel. As shown in the video, bow thruster engine draws several 100kW of power, perhaps even in MW range. Means quite high load on the 6600V HV bus, and need for minimum 2 DGRs (depending on other loads, e.g. power needed for reefers), maybe even DGR2 has also been used until then (NTSB preliminary report p.11 mentioned it was on `standby´; but it’s not clear whether this is for safety reasons only, or if it might have been used before). With drop (!) of such huge load, there’s need for proper load sharing while keeping synchronisation of the DGRs still. Several comments mentioned the challenges wrt that. This could already lead to scenario where power supply might get unstable, which could cause system control to disconnect and fully isolate transformer TR1 - leading to the first blackout observed (but HV bus still alive). Note this could also happen and maybe even worse if DGR2 has not been used. Power loss on the LV bus immediately affects fuel pumps (independent there might be some `gravity induced´ feed still). Until now, the scenario just describes `standard´ procedures only. So let’s add observations (and facts) on deviations. DGR3 had this issue in port due to `fuel pressure´. It might also explain system got very unstable in case of huge load drop when switching off bow thruster. Since fuel pumps not operating for a while due to first loss of power, that might worsen situation when re-gaining power in case fuel supply for DGR3 is insufficient even when fuel pumps are back again. Transformer TR1 (and its breakers HR1 & LR1) possibly might add trouble since not being used for months. At this point we can only speculate whether it might have caused first tripping, or whether this emergency tripping itself might have caused issues with TR1 then, causing very high add-on load. In any case, the huge smoke observed when restoring power points towards it obviously has been very challenging to achieve stable synchronisation and operation; triggering second, full blackout finally. So lots of topics for NTSB team to look into still … ; and very `good´ example to take existing observations into account and check whether they might fit to the puzzle when trouble-shooting and trying to get down to the root cause/s.
I saw the title of the video and was like wtf why would that ever have been a consideration but I see it was due to commenters who are a fair bit... less aware to put it politely. Great explanation though!
Another great video, Chief. I, like the majority of your viewers, know very little about ships and especially what is going on in the engine room. Yes, doing my studies I was part of a team changing to two engine blocks on a bulk carrier in Hamburg but that's all I know, replacing bits and pieces. I would suggest that you simply ignore some of the comments made by some know-it-all.
A great video-content idea would be... How this accident will impact future vessel design and/or operations? How alternate vessel designs currently in service might have had an alternative sequence of events due to better redundancy... etc.
exelent explanation for layman. in a good ship today the ER have a Vhf comunicator open on the decks working chanel to keep them informed and make it easier for them to interven fast in a case of emergency
0:20 My wife always tells me when I groan about such a completely impossible scene in a movie like this: You have to suspend your disbelief and enjoy the story. 🙂
I worked in the marine propulsion industry and had been in many shipyards during overhauls. I overlook a lot of movie mistakes but was so disgusted with Speed 2 that I walked out of the theater with my young son. Even he thought it was a stupid movie.
I'm like you about certain scenes in movies. Things like lever action repeating rifles before the Civil War, or never running out of ammunition. Cars exploding in midair is another pet peeve.
Thank you for another great explanation. As for the movie, I can't imagine how anyone could crank a bow thruster fast enough to have any effect. That movie goes in my list of other stupid movies, like "Battleship"
Informative as always Chief. I would love to know if you have sailed in Newfoundland waters. My stomping ground. Some very good sailors out this way, as there are all around the planet. Best regards.
Could yòu comment on why there are dampers in the generator exhaust trunkings. Does each DG have its own scrubber? What does this consist of and when is it used? What happens to the carbon rich water in the scrubber? A lot of us retired Marine Engineers have never come cross this type of equipment as we left the sea in the 1980's. If you could find the post under MV Dahli hits Baltimore bridge on Ship Nostalgia, perhaps you can answer the question there. Many Thanks.
Thanks for clearing this up. When I see 'Chief MAKOi,' it is like a panel light coming on that immediately demands my attention. When I want the best expert opinion on the Dali incident, this is where I go. I am still waiting for an explanation on why the circuit breakers opened as they did. My guess is that there was high voltage arcing between conductors or from a HV bus to ground due to a breakdown of the electrical insulation and that caused large current flow spikes and/or large back-EMF spikes that opened the breakers. Just a guess. I would really like to hear more on just what would cause the breakers to act as they did.
I had the pleasure of touring a Great Lakes (Canada) bulk carrier years ago. The bow thruster was powered by a massive Cat V - 8 diesel. The ship was likely built in the 60’s, before the advances in electrics and hydraulics.
Most people don't realize the amount of horsepower it takes to move a sizeable ship, let alone one the size of the Dali. It takes tens of thousands of horsepower from the main engines to move a large ship at any kind of useable speed, and to get it up to that speed in a reasonable amount of time. That bow thruster is probably at best just a few hundred horsepower. It would be equivalent to zipping along in a large bass boat with a 100 HP inboard engine at 20 knots, and then trying to change course using the tiny 12 volt 1/3 HP electric trolling motor you had mounted on the bow.
Back in the day with a lot of offshore supply vessels we didn’t have a bow thruster to use. Bow thrusters were called a luxury item. I sure wish we had the bow thrusters to help us tie up to the rigs offshore and with navigation back to the dock to walk the vessel to the dock.
As a submariner, the thought of a "blackout" aboard the boat is unimaginable. In the event of a reactor "SCRAM" the battery immediately takes up the ships load until either the reactor is restored and/or we get to snorkel depth and engage the diesel generator. Regardless of main power issues, critical systems, such as navigation, propulsion, communications and sensors all have backup power systems that keep them operational. We even have reserve hydraulic power (stored energy) to operate the steering and dive-planes in the event of total loss of power. The fact that commercial vessels have none of these things leads me to the intention to steer well-clear of merchant shipping when at-sea.
Presumably, the 600Kw bowthruster would be controlled from the bridge with low voltage, low power switching on the bridge. There isn't going to be a switch on the bridge capable of switching 600Kw and there isn't going to be HV cabling from the bridge to the bow. Hence, if the low voltage power is off, bridge controls won't work even though 6Kv power is available to the bow thruster.
Hi Chief, Your video is very insightful. I wanted to mention that the bow thruster is generally not effective at speeds below 5 knots / on the bridge in vicinity of central bow thruster controllers should have been posted this info . ⚓️⚓️⚓️⚓️⚓️about anchor chain (attempt of emergency anchoring) do you know how many shackles have actually dropped into water? A picture of the portbow will be very useful to understand if the chain paid out till the last anchor shackle or not?! As per crew in charge with anchor releasing statement of facts, the port anchor have been dropped but, the crew in charge had to escape due to the imminent impact, in order to have time to save his life. Thank you, and keep up the great work with your videos! ⚓️⚓️⚓️⚓️⚓️
There is another issue with the Dali's bow thrusters: Even if they tried to run them, they would probably not have operated. The 6000 V are not routed from the HV switchboard to the controls on the bridge and then back to the bow thruster. The bow thruster's HV supply will be controlled via relays, contactors or their electronic equivalents, using e.g. 400 V or low voltage (110 or 220 V, or even low voltage, like 28 V DC, coming from transformers or transformer rectifiers attached to one of the low voltage busses).And these busses were down. On big aircraft it is the same: High power consumers, like e.g. hydraulic or fuel pumps, windscreen heat etc., usually have two circuit breakers: 1) Operating power, usually 115 V three phase, and 2) a circuit breaker for control, which comes e.g. from a 28 V DC bus. Btw., if you think Hollywood movies about ships are bad and silly, watch Hollywood movies about airplanes, like "Airforce One" or "Die Hard 2". I usually only watch old aviation movies starring James Stewart. He was a trained and experienced military pilot in real life, after all, and talked the directors out of the worst nonsense.
That's right, can you imagine how f'ing dangerous that would be to run 6600 volts up to the bridge consoles, and someone presses that button with wet hands... BANGGGGGG. Not to mention high voltage marine grade cables are insanely expensive, and it's a long run up to the bridge, and then all the way forward to the bow thruster.
Yep. Can't remember if it was eSysman or a tug boat captain or Casual Navigation or someone else that mentioned bow thrusters are useless at 5 knots and that the _Dali_ was going over 5 knots at the time. Still, it's always good to hear from multiple people as each one provides extra information from a different POV. 👍
Great "series" of videos, esp. on the Dali. This may have already been asked and answered but what was the rudder position throughout this timeline? I understand rudder efficiency is minimized without the main screw pushing water across it however I've sailed enough "sailboats" that the tiller seems to work as long as I have forward motion ;-) Newton's First Law indicates an object in motion will continue to move at a constant speed and in a straight line unless an outside force acts upon it. What "force(s)" caused Dali to turn slightly to starboard vs. continuing straight which, at most, would have been a glancing blow vs. a direct hit? Or am I all wet?
Love your insightful explanations. Fair winds and following seas, Chief!
Thanks Chief 👍
it's always good to listen to someone that Knows first hand, what he is talking about! Thank you Chief.
thank you Chief for your knowledge and the patience to clearly teach us the fact on ship operations. We don't realize how much of our modern life relies on the steady operation of these ships!
Very welcome.
Chief, you do not know what a pleasure it is to have some knowledge reviewing the key bridge/Dali tragedy. Keep up the great work!!!!
Rance here…once again a very good explanation of the very thing that I was thinking…Thanks Chief
Glad to help
The thing that is really nice about these videos, quite apart from the fact that you clearly know what you are talking about, is the fact that you don't play the part of a smart arse, heaping blame on the crew and saying how you could have done it better. Quite the opposite, you explain the difficulties they face and explain their predicament very fairly and sensibly. Very refreshing :-)
Couldn't have said it better myself>
You are a good teacher who gives me the impression of being someone who knows something about seamanship. Merci Chef!
He is highly recommended by Sal who does a diffrent podcast.
😅
A l'institut de marine de Rimouski on disait un 'beau' truster .
I always prefer to listen to your views on matters like this 👍👏
Thank you again for the technical information presented.
Thanks for insightful info👍
Thanks Doug!
I love the idea of the captain contacting the ER to regain power.
What the F**K (and I’ve seen this) do you think the CE is doing???
I once had a master ask me if I was trying to extinguish an engine room fire. Whilst I was trying to extinguish the same. 😳
This one of the best channels on maritime subjects Follow. 👍
Yeah, I had this thought too. When Chief said that the captain would "tell the engineers to restore power immediately," I wondered if there has even been a case where the engineering crew were standing around in the control room, saying, "What should we do?" "I dunno, let's wait for the captain to call and see what he thinks should we should do."
@@Curt_Sampson In my time in the Army, I did encounter 1 soldier in my whole unit who was like that. Wouldn't do anything, unless a Sergent told him to do something. No one else. Had to be an NCO or officer. If another solder said something, he would ignore them. He didn't get far in the unit.
Similar incident for me many years ago. I told the old man on the phone that I was working on restoring power and to stop calling down here because I was busy working on it and didn't have time to stop and answer multiple calls. I said it would go a lot faster if he stopped and I would call him when I finished. He stopped calling after that and let me get on with my job. It actually humbled him a bit at that moment. Power was restored and I think he gained a better understanding of our world down there and a bit more appreciation for our knowledge and dedication to our work.
Navy ship's Captains do exactly the same things, as if when main power drops out the skipper thinks ChEng is standing around with a finger up his nose. Skippers who were Chief Engineers earlier in their careers are just as bad.
Thats the reason why it should be compulsory to be trained both as a deck and engine officer. At least a decent amount of time. This case you know hats going on in the other department and are not going to make these stupid calls.
Some years ago I had a friend who was Chief Engineer on a refrigerated ship. They had bow thrusters as they had to load in some 'interesting' ports. He made the point that the thrusters consume a lot of power, so when they were in use the fridge had to be turned off.
In any case, the bow thruster will have to be working pretty hard to have much effect on something the size of a 30 or 40 storey office block. Inertia is always going to win here.
The environment will have a few things to say about it too, winds and currents or tides can and do push even the biggest and most powerful ships around like toys.
0:14 There are certain rules with regads to movies:
- soldiers don't watch war movies
- pilots don't watch airplane crash movies
- seafarers don't watch movies with lots of shipping in it.
Computer engineers don’t watch hacking movies either
Which explains why history keeps repeating itself. ie: Sunshine Skyway Bridge accident 44 years ago. "If you don't learn what caused a previous accident you are apt to repeat it".
If federally mandated laws, safety regulations and protocol were followed, this 100% preventable incident would not have happened.
False. I,m a former seafarer and do watch stuff regarding shipping.
@@amarsekhar-rv8vd I agree. If you are a first responder, Dr, builder, or auto manufacturer, etc. WeEARN from previous mistakes/weak links that caused a problem(theoretically) so we may produce a safer/ better product, service or cause of action.
A child or animal learns from trial and error. Football players study seemingly endless film to better their game.
Only a fool would ignore mistakes hence will repeat them.
I hope my family doctor doesn't watch House MD 😅
I have been waiting for you to address this because all the other maritime channels go off the deep end and get to technical and confusing when I was looking for a basic explanation.
Thank you for the explanation of this incident. I enjoy watching your videos. 😊
Thanks for that Chief... I was wondering why they didn't use the bow thruster, since it showed available under the use able power bus... But this makes sense that the speed was not conducive to being usable..
Bow thruster can be used without speed. Often used to push away the ship from a dock
@@gervaisbilodeau8465 Chief Makoi was saying that the ship was going _too fast_ for it to work.
@@Lucius_Chiaraviglio
I was talking about rudder, not bow thruster.
Thank you Chief
Great explanation of why the thruster wasn't used. Really like your channel
Thanks! 👍
As usual a very clear explanation of the events, for us non seafarers. Keep them coming Chief.
Great explanation chief, thanks.
thank you for being short and concise, and not trying to make a 25m dawn-of-time anthology about everything that was ever tangentially related to bow thrusters.
Short answer: it ineffective at the speed they were going
As the pivot point is fwd of the midship , and also the rudder is more effective than the bow thrusthers at that speed
It also doesn’t work when the power is off - it needs three megawatts of power from the high voltage bus but is controlled by the low voltage bus powered controls.
@@allangibson8494That's the most misunderstood point. The controls are operated from the low voltage bus. No LV, no controls. However comma, was not the emergency generator feeding the LV/control bus?
And Chief Makoi points out the ineffectiveness of tge bow thrusters at speed.
@@The_DuMont_Network The Emergency generator feeds a SUBSET of the controls (ie enough to troubleshoot the cause of failure with the assumption that you won’t be hitting a bridge in two minutes) - and was probably designed on the assumption that if the main generators were offline the bow thruster didn’t have power anyway. That said, a UPS on the bridge controls would seem to be a “good idea”.
Some ships do have fully redundant propulsion and control (ie some more modern LNG tankers (where a similar oopsy would have taken out the entire city (think Hiroshima sized fuel air explosion)).
@@allangibson8494 That's exactly right, they're not going to run 6600 volts to any controls. Imagine the arc flash hazard if there was a short somewhere. Ever seen what was left of a squirrel climbing up a power pole to a transformer HV bushing? It goes BANG.
While it seems obvious, but hearing that the engineers would not be aware of what is occurring outside the ship helps understanding what was happening. They would know they were still in the harbor, and that was enough to get their full attention on restoring operation immediately.
Another great episode Chief. Keep them coming.
Oh Gosh. The Speed 2 Reference. Anyone who remembers it is having back problems.
😆😆😆
I have seen the first speed movie, not seen any of the others.
Old enough to have seen it, but not bored enough to have ever watched it.
Yea but if they don't turn and turn while under water, how do you build suspense?
But it's weird that the ship would finally crash into a pier and then the anchor would drop on someone's luxury car.
If Chief Makoi was the protagonist in Speed 2, he'd stop the ship fast enough that there wouldn't be a movie, because there's no way an engine will keep running and running when no one's in the engine room to keep the oil pumping, the engine cool, electrical power flowing and all that. Really all that's really needed to stop the boat is just shut off the cooling water, oil, or whatever. The main engine would seize up and the main propeller wouldn't turn at all. No need to try to jam up the propeller with ropes or whatever, or even drop anchor to try and stop the ship. Actually I'm sure those marine engines have fire suppression systems. Trigger them and the main engine can't turn. There's also the engine's air supply fans, turn those off, and the engine can't run.
Or really, just do nothing for a couple of hours and I'm sure the main engine would stop on its own. No way any computer hacking would make a ship run automatically, at least not back in those days. Ship has crews because they need them to keep the ship afloat. Heck even just flooding some ballast would likely slow the ship down enough to where no amount of engine power would make it go after than a couple of knots.
Also copper poisoning? Didn't even know it was a thing.
I should also mention, the bad guy in Speed 2 would likely take Chief Makoi out before doing his computer lockout, as the chief would figure out how to basically destroy the engine to stop the ship. However without the chief and his engineers, the ship wouldn't go far before something forced the engine to stop, and the plan is foiled.
Just like clockwork. Thanks Chief. Without further ado! I gotta a video to watch 🤣👍🇨🇦
Enjoy!
@@ChiefMAKOi Getting a response makes it all that better 👍. Ya you gotta like the movies. Here in the real world it's not at all like that with alot of things. Looking forward to the next one. No pressure lol. 👍🇨🇦🔧
My parents had a share in a barge in France. The bow thruster controls were not even on the main control panel at the helm, and I was told not to use them. Once, when everyone was taking a nap, I gave them try. 150 ton displacement, (a converted coal barge), at 6 knots down a straight, 2 minutes of bow thrusters before dad came up to tell me off, made no difference to our direction of travel. It did get me off driving the boat for 3 days though.
Very good narrative on a very difficult series of major problems. Thanks...
Very good explanation for us people that was never on a big ship. I enjoy your channel. Stay safe.
Many thanks for explaining in simple language and illustrations for the general public. Your level of knowledge is truly appreciated.
You're very welcome!
Thank you Chief. I love all your videos!
Very nice time lapse of passing through the Suzi Canal at the end of your presentation. Thank you for explaining things in detail that a lay person (non seafarer) could understand.
Thanks for the detailed analysis.
chief makmoi ur a good teacher! love how u educate us
Thank you. It is always good to an expert talk about these incidents.
Thanks for the video Chief. What I like most is I have no idea what options are available and you explained it very well. Take care.
Good video as always. Just to explain a little bit from a ship's Master's point of view, the reason that a bow thruster loses effectiveness as a vessel gains speed, is that the pivot point of the ship moves forward. At anything but very slow speeds, a ship's pivot point (the center that the ship rotates around when turning) is well forward (roughly two third of the waterline length), which means that the bow thruster has a very short lever arm to turn the vessel, when compared to the ship's rudder. At 6.5 kts, the bow thruster's effect on the ship's direction would be negligible. Well done chief!
Great discription Chief. I can see why you are a great instructor.
Thanks.
Chief, another great video. Very informative.
Excellent explanation!
Very well spoken.. nice to hear your words. Cheers from Vietnam
As always, Great insight Chief.
Thanks for your knowledge.
Thank you Chief for confirming what I had already figured out. All the best from Sydney Australia 🇦🇺
So nice to get the real version of events from an , no , THE expert.
hello sir chief! I've been following your case study in regards to M/v Dali's allision incident although it may be opinionated, however with credible and reliable sources/articles as reference, it all make sense! i am from Deck dept. yet I've watch must of your videos! truly you never disappoints your followers/viewers! God speed sir chief!
Superb explanation, Thank you, Chief!
I am brighter after your explanations !
Top notch teacher !
Great comments. Thanks.
What you told at the end makes the most sense, bowtrusters don't work at any speed forwards.
It only works when you are making no speed..
I have two vessels, one with a bowtruster, (12 meter vessel, 8 ps thruster) and it don't simply works on speed.
(the other is a seagoing almost 80 years former fishingvessel where we live on)
Another great video Chief, thanks for this.
Excellent again, Chief !
"real life doesn't work like the movies" is a near universal truth.
Very well explained, thanks.
I wonder if from now on, large ships, such as the unfortunate Dali, will be required to have tug assist until well and clear underway.
Exactly, we do have that in The LNG carrier sector as a default. Risk mitigation before cost consideration....
Love your show. Thank you for the content. It is fascinating to hear about the nuts & bolts of some of the things we hear about from so many sources. I'm really enjoying it.
Thanks! Very clear, simple and illustrating explanation.
Just what comes from a pro in its business.
Thanks Chief MAKOi for taking the time and coming up with both very professional and logical explanation about procedures in such emergency case; fully makes sense.
Chief `Steam man´ brought up an interesting point in a chat with you in your YT video “Explaining the NTSB report …”, mentioning “bow thruster stop time” (i.e. after having moved away from the pier and the 180° turn); and made some connection to the issues with the diesel generators (DGRs). To me is good thought & approach also to look into electrical `load drops´, not only jumps with load increase. We can strongly assume preliminary NTSB report so far only included topics which are waterproof already.
I’ve spent quite some thoughts about it. On the one hand I don’t want to bother you with lengthy comment and things you anyway know much better than me, but it might be interesting; also for other people following this incident.
Let me describe a scenario I could imagine here, trying to put various pieces of the puzzle together (based on videos, AIS data and NTSB report; plus technical discussions). When leaving the pier, MV Dali made this 180° turn. Besides support from the tugs, I’d strongly assume bow thruster has been used, too. Both AIS data and NTSB report show speed was already above 5 knots when going `straight ahead´ on main channel. Now, with bow thruster being much less / not effective at this speed, there’s “plenty of time” to stop operation of the bow thruster. So pilots (and captain) might have ordered its stop at some point moving along the main channel.
As shown in the video, bow thruster engine draws several 100kW of power, perhaps even in MW range. Means quite high load on the 6600V HV bus, and need for minimum 2 DGRs (depending on other loads, e.g. power needed for reefers), maybe even DGR2 has also been used until then (NTSB preliminary report p.11 mentioned it was on `standby´; but it’s not clear whether this is for safety reasons only, or if it might have been used before). With drop (!) of such huge load, there’s need for proper load sharing while keeping synchronisation of the DGRs still. Several comments mentioned the challenges wrt that. This could already lead to scenario where power supply might get unstable, which could cause system control to disconnect and fully isolate transformer TR1 - leading to the first blackout observed (but HV bus still alive). Note this could also happen and maybe even worse if DGR2 has not been used. Power loss on the LV bus immediately affects fuel pumps (independent there might be some `gravity induced´ feed still).
Until now, the scenario just describes `standard´ procedures only. So let’s add observations (and facts) on deviations. DGR3 had this issue in port due to `fuel pressure´. It might also explain system got very unstable in case of huge load drop when switching off bow thruster. Since fuel pumps not operating for a while due to first loss of power, that might worsen situation when re-gaining power in case fuel supply for DGR3 is insufficient even when fuel pumps are back again. Transformer TR1 (and its breakers HR1 & LR1) possibly might add trouble since not being used for months. At this point we can only speculate whether it might have caused first tripping, or whether this emergency tripping itself might have caused issues with TR1 then, causing very high add-on load. In any case, the huge smoke observed when restoring power points towards it obviously has been very challenging to achieve stable synchronisation and operation; triggering second, full blackout finally.
So lots of topics for NTSB team to look into still … ; and very `good´ example to take existing observations into account and check whether they might fit to the puzzle when trouble-shooting and trying to get down to the root cause/s.
I saw the title of the video and was like wtf why would that ever have been a consideration but I see it was due to commenters who are a fair bit... less aware to put it politely. Great explanation though!
After you explain it, there is nothing more to say. Thanks for your many videos.
Thank you chief.
Another great video, Chief. I, like the majority of your viewers, know very little about ships and especially what is going on in the engine room. Yes, doing my studies I was part of a team changing to two engine blocks on a bulk carrier in Hamburg but that's all I know, replacing bits and pieces.
I would suggest that you simply ignore some of the comments made by some know-it-all.
Great work n analysis as usual. Thanks 👍
Thanks chief
A great video-content idea would be... How this accident will impact future vessel design and/or operations? How alternate vessel designs currently in service might have had an alternative sequence of events due to better redundancy... etc.
Cheers Chief.
exelent explanation for layman.
in a good ship today the ER have a Vhf comunicator open on the decks working chanel to keep them informed and make it easier for them to interven fast in a case of emergency
0:20 My wife always tells me when I groan about such a completely impossible scene in a movie like this: You have to suspend your disbelief and enjoy the story. 🙂
😄
I worked in the marine propulsion industry and had been in many shipyards during overhauls. I overlook a lot of movie mistakes but was so disgusted with Speed 2 that I walked out of the theater with my young son. Even he thought it was a stupid movie.
@@kimmer6 interestingly, Speed (1) wasn't that bad, or at least this is how I remember it. I never got to see Speed 2
@@rnzoli Speed 2 was worse.
I'm like you about certain scenes in movies. Things like lever action repeating rifles before the Civil War, or never running out of ammunition. Cars exploding in midair is another pet peeve.
Inneresting perspective, engineering don’t need to know the scenery. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
I had wondered about that but thanks to your great explanation I understand why they were not used. Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us.
Just a small correction, from the markings on the MV Dali's bow the was only 1 bow thruster.
Thanks, Chief.
As always great explanations for us
Thanks once again for logical insight chief
Love your channel.Very interesting career field you work in.
Not ridiculous, just Hollywood. Thanks for the commentary.
Thanks !! It is so nice to learn from you
Thank you for another great explanation. As for the movie, I can't imagine how anyone could crank a bow thruster fast enough to have any effect. That movie goes in my list of other stupid movies, like "Battleship"
Informative as always Chief. I would love to know if you have sailed in Newfoundland waters. My stomping ground. Some very good sailors out this way, as there are all around the planet. Best regards.
Could yòu comment on why there are dampers in the generator exhaust trunkings. Does each DG have its own scrubber? What does this consist of and when is it used? What happens to the carbon rich water in the scrubber? A lot of us retired Marine Engineers have never come cross this type of equipment as we left the sea in the 1980's. If you could find the post under MV Dahli hits Baltimore bridge on Ship Nostalgia, perhaps you can answer the question there. Many Thanks.
Well explained the function of the Bow Thrusters for berthing purposes at maximum velocity of 2 Knots.
Thanks for clearing this up. When I see 'Chief MAKOi,' it is like a panel light coming on that immediately demands my attention. When I want the best expert opinion on the Dali incident, this is where I go.
I am still waiting for an explanation on why the circuit breakers opened as they did. My guess is that there was high voltage arcing between conductors or from a HV bus to ground due to a breakdown of the electrical insulation and that caused large current flow spikes and/or large back-EMF spikes that opened the breakers. Just a guess. I would really like to hear more on just what would cause the breakers to act as they did.
So wise , Thank You
That was well explained 👍👏!
Thanks Chief! 👍
Correct Chief Makoi.
Any thoughts or efforts put into the bow thrusters at this speed and critical juncture would have been negligent.
thanks, awesome explanation as usual!
I had the pleasure of touring a Great Lakes (Canada) bulk carrier years ago. The bow thruster was powered by a massive Cat V - 8 diesel. The ship was likely built in the 60’s, before the advances in electrics and hydraulics.
Thanks for sharing 👍🏾
Most people don't realize the amount of horsepower it takes to move a sizeable ship, let alone one the size of the Dali. It takes tens of thousands of horsepower from the main engines to move a large ship at any kind of useable speed, and to get it up to that speed in a reasonable amount of time. That bow thruster is probably at best just a few hundred horsepower.
It would be equivalent to zipping along in a large bass boat with a 100 HP inboard engine at 20 knots, and then trying to change course using the tiny 12 volt 1/3 HP electric trolling motor you had mounted on the bow.
The bow thruster on those large ships is a few 1000 horsepower, but the main engines are nearly 50K. Massive difference.
Excellent explanation, Chief.
Also, dragging the anchor would not have helped the bow thrusters...
Back in the day with a lot of offshore supply vessels we didn’t have a bow thruster to use. Bow thrusters were called a luxury item. I sure wish we had the bow thrusters to help us tie up to the rigs offshore and with navigation back to the dock to walk the vessel to the dock.
As a submariner, the thought of a "blackout" aboard the boat is unimaginable. In the event of a reactor "SCRAM" the battery immediately takes up the ships load until either the reactor is restored and/or we get to snorkel depth and engage the diesel generator.
Regardless of main power issues, critical systems, such as navigation, propulsion, communications and sensors all have backup power systems that keep them operational. We even have reserve hydraulic power (stored energy) to operate the steering and dive-planes in the event of total loss of power.
The fact that commercial vessels have none of these things leads me to the intention to steer well-clear of merchant shipping when at-sea.
Laughed real hard at "one the stupidest things I've seen in my entire life"
Presumably, the 600Kw bowthruster would be controlled from the bridge with low voltage, low power switching on the bridge. There isn't going to be a switch on the bridge capable of switching 600Kw and there isn't going to be HV cabling from the bridge to the bow. Hence, if the low voltage power is off, bridge controls won't work even though 6Kv power is available to the bow thruster.
Very clear
Hi Chief, Your video is very insightful. I wanted to mention that the bow thruster is generally not effective at speeds below 5 knots / on the bridge in vicinity of central bow thruster controllers should have been posted this info . ⚓️⚓️⚓️⚓️⚓️about anchor chain (attempt of emergency anchoring) do you know how many shackles have actually dropped into water? A picture of the portbow will be very useful to understand if the chain paid out till the last anchor shackle or not?! As per crew in charge with anchor releasing statement of facts, the port anchor have been dropped but, the crew in charge had to escape due to the imminent impact, in order to have time to save his life.
Thank you, and keep up the great work with your videos! ⚓️⚓️⚓️⚓️⚓️
There is another issue with the Dali's bow thrusters: Even if they tried to run them, they would probably not have operated. The 6000 V are not routed from the HV switchboard to the controls on the bridge and then back to the bow thruster. The bow thruster's HV supply will be controlled via relays, contactors or their electronic equivalents, using e.g. 400 V or low voltage (110 or 220 V, or even low voltage, like 28 V DC, coming from transformers or transformer rectifiers attached to one of the low voltage busses).And these busses were down.
On big aircraft it is the same: High power consumers, like e.g. hydraulic or fuel pumps, windscreen heat etc., usually have two circuit breakers: 1) Operating power, usually 115 V three phase, and 2) a circuit breaker for control, which comes e.g. from a 28 V DC bus.
Btw., if you think Hollywood movies about ships are bad and silly, watch Hollywood movies about airplanes, like "Airforce One" or "Die Hard 2". I usually only watch old aviation movies starring James Stewart. He was a trained and experienced military pilot in real life, after all, and talked the directors out of the worst nonsense.
That's right, can you imagine how f'ing dangerous that would be to run 6600 volts up to the bridge consoles, and someone presses that button with wet hands... BANGGGGGG. Not to mention high voltage marine grade cables are insanely expensive, and it's a long run up to the bridge, and then all the way forward to the bow thruster.
Chief can you make a video about Total Harmonic distortion causing breakers, to trip
Yep. Can't remember if it was eSysman or a tug boat captain or Casual Navigation or someone else that mentioned bow thrusters are useless at 5 knots and that the _Dali_ was going over 5 knots at the time. Still, it's always good to hear from multiple people as each one provides extra information from a different POV. 👍
Great "series" of videos, esp. on the Dali. This may have already been asked and answered but what was the rudder position throughout this timeline? I understand rudder efficiency is minimized without the main screw pushing water across it however I've sailed enough "sailboats" that the tiller seems to work as long as I have forward motion ;-) Newton's First Law indicates an object in motion will continue to move at a constant speed and in a straight line unless an outside force acts upon it. What "force(s)" caused Dali to turn slightly to starboard vs. continuing straight which, at most, would have been a glancing blow vs. a direct hit? Or am I all wet?