Francis Scott Key Bridge Collapse

[GordMay]

There is no indication that the construction company, Brawner Builders, had a rescue boat, on the water, as required by Federal & State law.
If there was a skiff there, it should have heard the Dali's mayday call[s], and could have radioed the workers, to get off the bridge. However, even if the workers had been warned that the ship was about to hit, it's unclear if they would have had enough time to scramble to safety.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations say construction companies, performing work over waterways, must have at least one safety boat available. OSHA officials have said, in rule interpretations*, that the required boat can “ensure prompt rescue of employees that fall into the water, regardless of other precautions taken to prevent this from occurring.”

* OSHA Interpretation per 'Q2'
“... Title 29 CFR 1926.106(d) states:
At least one lifesaving skiff shall be immediately available at locations where employees are working over or adjacent to water ...”
➥ https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/stand...s/2004-08-23-1

[hpeer]

Gord,
That requirement is pretty lightly treated. The boat does not have to be appropriate to the task nor the crew. It is more or less a check box requirement.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Gord,
1. That requirement is pretty lightly treated.
2. The boat does not have to be appropriate to the task nor the crew. It is more or less a check box requirement.

1. Perhaps, now, it might be treated more seriously.
2. OSHA letter of interpretation: June 13, 1990
Response to the question about compliance with the requirements of OSHA Standard 29 CFR 1926.106(d), which reads as follows:
At least one lifesaving skiff shall be immediately available at locations where employees are working over or adjacent to water.
To be considered in compliance with the aforementioned standard, an employer must have a lifesaving skiff available that could, at the minimum, retrieve an employee from the water no more than three (3) to four (4) minutes from the time they entered the water.
However, if there are any additional hazards, such as very cold water, rapids an employee could be swept into, etc., the lifesaving skiff would have to be able to retrieve an employee before they sustained injuries as a result of those additional hazards.
In addition to the preceding, an employer is required to comply with all other
applicable standards including, but not limited to, the requirements that an
injured employee be treated by medical personnel or an employee certified in first aid within three (3) to four (4) minutes from the time the injury occurred.
This could mean that first aid treatment would have to begin in the lifesaving
skiff.


See also, interpretation letter of December 6, 1991

“he skiff must be in the water or capable of being quickly launched by one person.
• There must be at least one person present and specifically designated to respond to water emergencies and
operate the skiff at all times when there are employees above water.
• When the operator is on break another operator must be designated to provide the requisite coverage while
employees are above water.
• The designated operator must either man the skiff at all times or remain in the immediate area such that the
operator can quickly reach the skiff and get underway.
• The skiff operator may be assigned other tasks provided the tasks do not interfere with the operator's ability to
quickly reach the skiff and get underway.
• The communication system, such as a walkie-talkie, must be used to inform the skiff operator of an emergency
and to inform the operator where the skiff is needed.
• The skiff must be equipped with both a motor and oars.

Much more ➥ https://www.hydro.org/wp-content/upl...eting-2008.pdf

[psk125]

Originally Posted by GordMay

There is no indication that the construction company, Brawner Builders, had a rescue boat, on the water, as required by Federal & State law.[/URL]

Do we actually know that there was no skiff on location? Was it on location and destroyed in the bridge collapse? We don't know. The requirements talk of being able to launch quickly, but not of having to be cruising under the work site(s). They mention walkie-talkies but not VHF equipment that would have informed the skiff operator beforehand so they would launch. Didn't one of the tugs on scene rescue two of the workers? The others have not been found and are presumably tangled in submerged wreckage. A skiff would not have been able to help them. From the NTSB news conference it sounds like we will find out about all these details, but it will take time.

[Montanan]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/se...fdb3e37f&ei=15

"Work crews opened a second temporary channel in the Patapsco River on Tuesday, allowing larger ships into the Port of Baltimore for the first time since the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed last week.

The Key Bridge collapse has shuttered the port, throwing East Coast logistics into chaos. Crews are continuing work on constructing a third, larger channel in order to enable large ships into the port.
. . .
The small channels will be mostly used by vessels involved in the cleanup effort and small ships stuck in the harbor.

Massive cranes have moved steel wreckage out of the river, clearing the way for the small temporary channels, 11 and 14 feet deep, respectively. The main channel under the bridge was 50 feet deep, with most large cargo ships requiring at least 35 feet of clearance."

[skipperpete]

I’d suspect that the presence of a skiff under the key bridge would have simply added to the death toll, I want to believe that a skiff stationed below the workers could have saved them as they plunged into the water on the blacktop and the steelwork rained down from above, but the sad reality is almost “certainly not”. Here in Brisbane we have the Gateway bridge across the river and it’s fairly high above the shipping channel, there were numerous “jumpers “ when the it was first opened up until the high barriers were erected…. No one survived that fall into the relatively warm Brisbane river.

[GordMay]

Up close, from aboard a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ship, to examine the twisted wreckage, of the collapsed Key Bridge.
➥ https://youtu.be/WvlA4cdfx8I

[GordMay]

“What Your Boat and the Baltimore Super Container Ship May Have in Common” ~ by Practical Sailor Staff
Early speculation on what caused the Dali’s power outage centers on fuel contamination. Every boat with a diesel engine is susceptible to this insidious problem. Here are some ways to get ahead of it.
➥ https://www.practical-sailor.com/sys...NC20240403-Sub

[Ballsnall]

Originally Posted by GordMay

1. Perhaps, now, it might be treated more seriously.

Were they actually working over water?
The work crew were reported to be repairing potholes on the road and not working on the bridge structure itself.

[Kettlewell]

Early speculation on what caused the Dali’s power outage centers on fuel contamination. Every boat with a diesel engine is susceptible to this insidious problem. Here are some ways to get ahead of it.

The key word is "speculation." I'll wait for actual reports and investigations.

[skipperpete]

The logical cause of the entire incident is that there was a major ongoing electrical problem that was never corrected. There’s an interview online with a refrigerated container contractor who was working on the containers and that ship had multiple power blackouts alongside the dock to the extent that the port authority had to supply power to keep the boxes cold while the engineers had the plant shut down. It could be as simple as faulty automatic synchronization or as complicated as a failed transformer…..the pressure exerted by management on the engineers via the captain to get that ship powered up and out of the harbour must have been intense. Eventually the whole truth will be revealed but for me , the engineers are the weakest link, (and same for the bad fuel issue suggestion but that’s another story altogether)

[AA3JY]

US Corp of Engineers to open the Main Channel by end of May.

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https...Js1N8Q3RkU&s=1

[Montanan]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/workers-begin-removing-dali-ship-s-containers-at-key-bridge-cleanup/ar-BB1le7NO?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=659579adfda245 29b730a539ffd45b9e&ei=11

"Salvage crews on Sunday began removing containers from the deck of the Dali container ship."

. . .

"Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg talked about a plan the Army Corps of Engineers released last week to open a 35-foot deep channel to the Port of Baltimore by the end of April. The secretary said that would allow some vessels to pass from the bay to the port and some port employees to return to work."

[Montanan]

Video of progress toward removal of shipping containers from the Dali to facilitate removal of the bridge parts that are laying on top of the ship.

Link:

[skipperpete]

I imagine that the captain and pilots are thankful that they weren’t piloting the latest Maersk ship “Ane Maersk”. The newest ship has all the accomodation and wheelhouse at the very bow, right about where the concrete and bitumen roadway landed on the “Dali”.