The normal routine to crash stop one of these large vessels is put the engines full astern and weave the ship side to side and stopping in a couple of miles. In the current situation, although the ship would have been going slow, assuming loss of power it wouldn't have the option. Chesapeake Bay is really a huge estuary with the Potomac, York, James, Clarke and half a dozen other rivers all draining into it so quite possibly a 3-4 knot downstream flow - So - using your ballistic app - 100,000 tonnes at 5 knots = a lot of energy.I believe that oil tankers can take 8 miles to come to a standstill so a ship f similar weight/volume like that one probably has a similar stopping distance.
The last time I read anything on it sounds like a technical failure rather than human error.
Either way it is tragic for the families that have lost loved ones.
If you have a full power outage you will have lost steerage too.Just read this on the BBC News.
It suffered a "power issue" and issued a distress call moments before the crash, officials say, but was travelling too quickly to change course
The thing that struck me was the speed in which the whole bridge collapsed - just seconds. And looking at the wreckage it really does look a flimsy bridge
That bridge did look very flimsy compared to the Forth rail bridge but that was built by Victorians not modern "engineers".If you have a full power outage you will have lost steerage too.
The thing that struck me was the speed in which the whole bridge collapsed - just seconds. And looking at the wreckage it really does look a flimsy bridge - no doubt a masterly exercise in efficient design and engineering but almost like a framework of a Sopwith Camel before the fabric was added.
I wonder if they will rebuild it the same?
I can see that they will soon legislate that large ships will need tugboats in attendance until clear of such obstacles.