Originally Posted by Valsdad
Originally Posted by gunchamp
Originally Posted by Valsdad
Originally Posted by gunchamp
Wonder what changes will be made so something like this wont happen again
See my post there,

I'm guessing tug assistance until out of the harbor, Maybe out past the #1 buoy even?
That makes most sense. I cant believe they werent already requiring that
It's all about the money.

Ships don't often require that assistance once underway. Shipping companies don't want to pay for what's not normally needed. Actuarial tables likely figured the odds of it happening are so low, "we'll take our chances".

Just look at building in flood zones. Every time the Mississippi or some other big river overflows its banks, they just rebuild.

With the insurance companies refusing to write new policies for Cali due to their losses in wildfires and maybe quakes, when will see Allstate and Progressive stop writing in flood prone areas???

What type of companies do want to pay for what’s not needed, brother Geno?

As far as insurance actuary tables, I bet they all get updated now for municipal type projects (bridges, highways, etc). Nothing is the same price as just three years ago. They may have been using 5 year old construction costs when they were weighing the cost of a tug boat escort. And what were the ODDS a ship would take out the most important structural support?


[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]