Hacker News Reader

Comment by curtis | Hacker News Reader

Something that I'd missed in previous articles about the El Faro sinking:

> Then, at 0554 , the captain ordered a turn to port to get the wind on the ship’s starboard side, generating a port list. A few minutes later, El Faro lost propulsion

---

> Log books indicated no more than 26 inches of oil in the sump in the months before the accident ( a ). With this oil level, the bellmouth would not take in air (lose suction) with an 18-degree list to starboard ( b ), but would lose suction with an equivalent list to port ( c ).

They had other serious problems, but loosing propulsion in heavy seas is very serious indeed.

View on HN

It's interesting that the low oil pressure cutoff (designed to prevent engine damage from running without lubrication) is amongst the things that ultimately doomed the vessel.

Or the engine would have died anyway from running with no oil for another hour. Considering they were in the middle of the storm and that the captain rejected giving up until the very last moment, I don't think it would have made a difference.

They would have all lived though if they had modern life boats that were enclosed and could be launched from a list

Are these boats able to reliably withstand such a heavy storm (assuming they don't get smashed against the ship or some rocks/land of course)?

Yes.

The biggest issue with finding yourself inside one of these in a proper storm is that you’ll get thrown about violently (the lifeboat; you’ll be securely strapped into your seat using a five-point harness, or at least you were in the ones I’ve had evac drills in) for long enough to be as violently ill.

I’ve been told by instructors - no guarantee it’s true, that, but imho sounds plausible - that the #1 cause of death in lifeboats or rafts after successfully abandoning ship is dehydration; you sweat profusely, puke repeatedly until your body can’t take it anymore.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com