The ship had 2 tugs escort it from the dock to the channel and then released it with a harbor pilot on board.

That is 100% standard policy and in no way a cutback.

Where do you get this stuff?

Miami cargo harbor and turning basin requires tugs from harbor channel entrance and to exit.

Not the only harbor to do so.

Upon further review, do ya think that this standard procedure needs to be upgraded in Baltimore harbor?

Keeping a tug or two on station at the bridges probably isn't a bad idea. But not sure an attached escort is required.

Every harbor is different. Currents, winds, traffic patterns, it all enters into the coat guard recommendations to the harbor for rules.

One size does not fit all.

I'm just a small boat guy, but I am coast guard licensed, and I've been in and out of some very busy harbors. Not every one needs full tug duty.

Obviously I'm not talking about pleasure boaters.

I would suggest relatively cheap preventative measures for ships that can take down bridges.

An ocean going tug costs upwards of $25M a year to run.

The tugs typically need to meet the ships a few miles beyond the first buoys, which are out in the ocean. That's where they will transfer the harbor pilot to the ship, which can be a real pucker power operation.

The captains make 7 figures, or very close to it. As do the harbor pilots. Good work if you can get it.

Harbor tugs are not open ocean going vessels.

They are two different things.

The knee bone is connected to the shin bone....

You are saying you want a tug escort from entrance to exit (I assume you mean dock or anchorage).

Well, where do you think the entrance to a harbor starts?

It starts at the number 1 and 2 buoys, which are out in the ocean, not in the harbor. Or in the case of Baltimore harbor, i suppose its out in the Chesapeake bay (not my area, dont know the waterways). Not quite the ocean, but beyond the durability of a harbor tug.

So how far out do you want them escorted?

Leave it to the experts. Yes, they didn't have sufficient protocols in place. I agree.

But I'm not sure a 50 mile escort is the answer.

Look at a marine chart.

...and ship traffic will go somewhere cheaper.

Don't know why you are going at the extremes.

I don't know of bridges 50 miles out in the ocean, do you?

I'm thinking that it's entirely reasonable that simple and effective measures be undertaken, like tugboat escorts for large container ships that can knock down bridges they go under.

I don't get how there could be pushback against this. Unless one is a container ship owner or leasee.

Even before you get out into the bay.

That's what my conversation is about. Protecting bridges from being knocked down by mega container ships.

Beyond the Scott Keyes bridge and then there is the Chesapeake bay bridge tunnel.

While you couldn't knock out shipping traffic on the bay bridge tunnel, you could possibly take out the roadway. That would be a pita, but not crippling.

The waterway is critical, but that is safe.

Obviously, not all ports have the same regulations regarding tugboats managing large container ships going through channels with bridges that can be destroyed by them.

Seems like it might be worth reconsidering, especially now that another major bridge has been destroyed by a ship without tugboats guiding it.

Lng gets tugs from cradle to grave (hopefully not literally). Also any vessel restricted in its ability to maneuver.

Nuclear subs will also be escorted in from about 5 miles out. Usually a tug will follow along with a couple of ribs.

So it depends.

Is likely liable (whether due to engine/power failure or captain error), and that the govt could go after them to reimburse all the costs, though this would take time if it had to go through courts. An analyst guest said Maersk could sustain even a multimillion dollar hit.

Aware of liability law.

It now looks like this:

Tugboats are cheap compared to bridge collapses.

They save lives too.

One would think it is fair to require them considering the capacity for disaster and history these mega ships have.

But a tugboat is no guarantee, they could still have accidents due to fog etc

Tugboats have radar also, so if the mega ships were to lose power, tugs would still be able to redirect ships with power failure.

That's what tugboats are for.

It would be a VERY implausible situation for multiple ships to all lose rader at the same time. Not enough data to figure the odds, but it would be very long odds.

I also agree with the idea of buttressing the abutments.

And do they have the mass necessary to stop a huge freight vessel moving at however many knots loaded down with containers if it loses power?

And if you notice, the center supports also have a island built around them

They lost power several times. It could have been running the bow thruster before getting an extra generator on line caused the second blackout. In any case, there was a smoke plume just before the allision, presumably the emergency full astern bell on the main engine.

I think an escort tug would not have had time to avoid this accident.

In the Puget Sound tankers are required to take escort tugs.

Captains don’t put their ships into neutral and let the tug do all of the movement.

Harbor tugs operate from the sides, redirecting forward motion of inbound and outbound ships in motion.

I agree it's not obvious when thrust and control was lost. Having tugs in place could well have redirected it. Especially with the ship moving at 8 knots or under.