Maybe a similar combination of events happened here?
[0] https://www.mopo.de/hamburg/frachter-rammt-faehre-knapp-an-d...
Given that the accident happened in Germany and the ship is Taiwanese.
It is just freaky, I don't know if it is good or bad to be associated with such an incident.
In a plane crash they are usually quick to paint over the name of the airline company to not be associated. I don't think this is the same though.
I can’t get worked up against them for wanting to get paid, even though I regard adverts as parasites of time, energy, and bandwidth and won’t disable my ad blocker for them — I don’t have solutions, just the aphorism about two wrongs.
I didn't tolerate it either — I can often figure out which button is "Necessary cookies only", but not in this case.
However, Firefox's reader mode retains the main image: https://www.mopo.de/image/32016852/2x1/940/470/afcc092634a9d...
But I agree with you that the placement and the fact that the banner blocks the whole website is unconvenient.
The second notification tells you to turn your ad-blocker of or to watch a video instead.
No, it is not mandatory by European law. The myth persists.
The site can use essential cookies or no cookies just fine, with no banner required at all. Nothing.
If they decide to use non-essential cookies, for example privacy-intrusion tracking cookies to follow your activity around the web for advertising, then they need to notify you of this tracking and obtain consent. You have a right to know, after all, and you might prefer to exercise your rights by declining consent. But nothing requires it to be a large banner, and nothing requires the "reject all" button to be difficult to find.
As I wrote, I find the blocking of the website and the placement of the banner unconvinient. I am also convinced that it should be mandatory to have a "essential cookies only" button.
I just wanted to explain what the banner is for, as the parent comment did not understand the german text.
I think it's not good because of the potential to become politicly charged. Add some "cyber" and it has NatSec types reeling. There is a scenario in Ghost Fleet[1] where a vessel sailing under a Chinese flag blocks the Panama canal in a theater of war with the West. Not going to issue any spoilers but it's a brilliant (fiction) novel for hypothetical future war scenario's.
Destroying or blocking as few as three locks could semi-permanently block all traffic in Panama, or worse, drain Gatun.
If true, then the "systemic issue" is only that ships are getting too big.
Ships of ANY size are hard or impossible to maneuver when they are going slow and have a blackout. The size doesn't matter.
The control surfaces only work when they move with regards to water.
The ship that does not move is uncontrollable with rudder and it needs to use something else to help it maneuver. This something else can be a tugboat that rotates the ship by the force it can generate, or it can be thrusters. Thrusters aren't propulsion method and they are relatively small and can counter only so much wind.
And yet, they were unable to prevent the wind from pushing them into a moored ferry they were passing.
I think the biggest issue is complexity and resulting unreliability. On a ship that has to be in constant use for decades you want things that are simple and reliable.
"The latest design, the Azipod X, incorporates these improvements, with a view to a service interval of five years, and features bearings that can be taken apart and repaired from inside the pod while the ship is harbored normally"
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. They are working on it:)
Also an important factor on large vessel is fuel efficiency. You don't want anything sticking out unless absolutely necessary, so these would have to be meant for propulsion. But because of complex construction I can expect they are less efficient than just straight through axle and a huge propeller on it.
I expect things like this to be useful on utility vessels of small to medium size where you don't necessarily need so much efficiency but the utility comes from being able to maneuver quickly and in various conditions.
They're quite efficient (although maybe only for lower speeds) and provide extreme maneuverability.
The engine can most likely work both directions equally.
The propeller is optimized to work in forward direction, so it will have worse efficiency going in the other direction.
The rotation would have to be limited when going in reverse because of cavitation (and maybe other structural limitations). That again is a result of the wrong shape of the propeller (when in wrong direction).
The hull will have significantly more drag when in wrong direction.
Now, engine power is defined as whatever it can put out and if the engine works the same way in both directions then power is the same also.
So you can think this way: most likely it has the same power as going forward but it can't use it and whatever it can use will be much less efficiently translated into motion.
When the fuel efficiency and reliability drive your competitiveness that is a huge issue.
They use large two stroke diesel engines which can be stopped and started in reverse. They use an extra valve in the engine head to admit air for starting and have valve gear which controls the direction.
Cruise ships on the other hand have electrical house loads which are almost the same as their propulsion loads. In addition to the manoeuvrability advantages this makes diesel electric drive advantageous.
The more descriptive cause is the failure to pay for adequate tug support/escort.
"(Escort tug charge) = 6,600 SDR/tug"
The article cites a tug captain as saying that they have a very limited ability to react to big ships being pushed by strong wind. They compare it to driving a care on ice.
[1] https://gcaptain.com/grounded-mega-ship-blocking-suez-canal-...
> Early reports speculated the vessel suffered a loss of power, but the ship’s operator, Evergreen Marine Corp, told Agence France-Presse it ran aground after being hit by a gust of wind.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/24/huge-container...
The ship comes around the curve travelling north close to the outside (right, east, starboard) shore then overcorrect to the west shore then overcorrect more gravely to the east again and run aground.