Mexican Navy ship slams into the Brooklyn Bridge

what a shit show.

🎶🎶🎶How come every time you come around my..🎶🎶🎶..Brooklyn, Brooklyn bridge going down like ....🎶🎶🎶...Brooklyn, Brooklyn bridge going down like ...🎶🎶

Do you know the one “All I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by”?

I just pray there's no transgender person helping in the rescue.

Blasting Mariachi music as it crashed into the bridge.

On the article, there are comments from people who say they were there.

Ship lost power and then drifted backwards into the bridge.

ay caramba

I'll admit that I have a weakness for glamorous disasters a la The Poseidon Adventure. I hope the injuries aren't serious.

Crack is whack....

Well, r6, what could they do?

Beautiful ship. But made to be handled without power.

Its lights were all on. I doubt it lost power.

[quote] I'll admit that I have a weakness for glamorous disasters a la The Poseidon Adventure. I hope the injuries aren't serious.

In the water, I'm a very skinny lady!

R10 how about their eyes off the Tiajuana donkey show for 1 minutes & stock in some real generators made in USA ? instead of whatever made in China trash they got going on

Deport them!

horrid

Was this on her iPod?

Another view

Gasp!

Fine. No more deporting maids and busboys.

There are a couple dozen sailors up on the yardarms furling the sails. How can there not be serious injuries?

Will this impact Fleet Week?

This shows why they are a nacion de gardeners and housekeepers.

Not sending their best!

My Mexican Navy sheet set is warm and cozy, designed for the home!

Well, if the U.S. should ever go to war with Mexico again, I believe we are assured of a U.S. victory.

This might seem dumb, but I didn't even realize that Mexico has a Navy.

They're not really known for being a seafaring nation.

A great big, beautiful ship--but nit as beautiful as ours--hit the Brooklyn Bridge, which is a bridge in Brooklyn.. A beautiful br8dye. Not as big as the bridge in San Francisco, the one hear Alcatraz. You know we're reopening Alcatraz, right? No one has hit Alcatraz, which many people are saying is sort of a miracle because Alcatraz is an island. Its right out there in the lake or the river. The bay. Baby baby, I'm taken with the notion. To love you with the sweetest of devotion.

[quote] There are a couple dozen sailors up on the yardarms furling the sails. How can there not be serious injuries?

Are they naked?

It was so beautiful, the whole world saw it!

It wasn't a real Navy Ship.

More like a souvenir type of ship from the olden days.

I sure hope someone got fired for that blunder.

[quote] I sure hope someone got fired for that blunder.

Whoever should have caught it was already a DOGE dismissal.

Better than the last thing tall ships brought to NYC.

HIV in 1976.

R29 yea—if only they had coastline or couple of oceans within their territorial limits.

R36 is RFK Jr.’s Chatbot

Seriously. How stupid can you be.

They used all their engine power on the light strings.

Shoulda made it a low rider.

Dude. No one checked in advance to see if the route had necessary clearance?

Absolutely horrible scene, but ffs.

All that yummy foreskin!

I read one dead, many injured

They lost power, was this ship made in China or Mexico???

Sinko de mayo

I don't understand, how was it supposed to pass under? It's too tall! Power or no power, how was it supposed to make it thru?

R46 best comment so far!!!

At least 2 dead

Ay, Dios mio!

The captain was drunk

Why would Mexican sailors even want to visit NYC this Fleet Week?!

The day before.

Videos show ship collision with Brooklyn Bridge

I thoughtthe footage was actually for a Cher music video for the Hispanic market: "Si Pudiera Retroceder el Tiempo".

[quote]next year’s Sail4th event, which will span July 3 to the 8 in the Big Apple — and will coincide with the World Cup and Fleet Week, which was moved for the momentous occasion.

All at the same time? That's going to be a clusterfuck.

The World Cup is not played on a river next to lower Manhattan….just so you know.

Sad but also what a national embarrassment for Mexico.

Countdown to Trump's low-key racist comment...

Can't some of you see it's going backwards? It lost propulsion and was pushed under the bridge by the tide. It was never supposed to go under the bridge.

You just went over the heads of 78% of the DL.

At least this didn’t bring the bridge down like the one in Baltimore.

^^^There was actually no structural damage at all. The bridge looked very crowded with cars. It must have been pretty scary seeing the masts coming towards you and hearing them crack.

That's what I thought, too, r60.

It was the tug pilot who lost control, which caused the ship to veer off course as it backed up…it was intending to head downstream.

I don't think that's true, R65. From the WSJ: "New York officials said there appeared to have been a mechanical problem aboard the vessel." The article never mentions the tug.

The Mexican ship was visiting NYC on its way to Iceland.

At a news conference on Saturday, the authorities said the pilot who was assigned to navigate the Cuauhtémoc out of the channel experienced “mechanical issues.”

r46, dark, but funny as hell! You win the DL today.

I'm surprised there weren't more deaths what with all the sailors on the yardarms.

Mechanical failure can happen but this is a Navy crew, they should have been clambering down from the rigging in emergency prep mode as soon as there was a problem. Or drop an anchor ASAP. The ship looked like it was drifting backwards toward the bridge for at least two minutes.

They're cadets. So not full-fleged yet?

I wondered also why they didn't try to get down off the masts when the ship was clearly in trouble.

It was backing up intentionally, so how they know they were “drifting” in the timespan of 00 seconds or less. .

90*

They tried to attack us! This is an act of war! I declare Marsha Law!!!

R73, somebody on that ship knew he had lost power. Presumably he also knew there were a hundred crew up in the rigging and that the now uncontrollable ship was taller than the bridge. The call to come down should have been immediate.

NYC what would you expect?

In the olden days, something called a “newspaper” would publish an article that would include a rudimentary map showing the intended course and the actual course that led to the collision. There would probably be a little star showing where they diverged and maybe notations giving the time they went off course and the time they hit the bridge. This would have happened already.

Since it s a pretty big story, there would also be follow up which would include interviews with people who would explain what instructions the sailors standing on the yardarms received and exactly what the procedure is, including how long it takes them to get up and down. Probably someone who did it several years ago or an instructor or both. And probably at a little background on the ship and the Mexican navy’s naval academy equivalent.

It’s early, but I don’t expect to see anything like that today.

I wouldn’t give up my smart phone to have that back, but I miss it.

That very map was published in the NYT article.

Was it really? That makes me happy R79.

The Trump administration must be licking its chops right now, all ready to blame this on illegal immigration AND DEI.

R79, it shows the path of the ship. It doesn’t show the intended path. It’s a 3/10. A picture can be worth a 1000 words, but not that picture.

The NYTs article is actually very good and gives interesting details about the history of the ship and its intended voyage. It was actually headed to Brooklyn for refueling (but not where it ended up, of course) before heading to Iceland.

[quote]the authorities said the pilot who was assigned to navigate the Cuauhtémoc out of the channel experienced “mechanical issues.”

“mechanical issues” = too much tequila.

All right, I should have read the whole article and posted once not here and at R82 and R80, but it’s a good article. The map isn’t good, but the article explains the intended route and I’ll give partial credit for at least including the map. I might re-subscribe. Thanks R79.

R84 Stephen Miller has joined the conversation.

Shouldn’t they have closed the bridge for a while at least to fully inspect it?

what the fuck is this type of ship with masts at all doing going to iceland from NYC?

The pilot is someone from harbor patrol—a New Yorker…not some someone already working on the shop.

ship*

R88 can’t read. And never heard of flagship tall ships from various countries. Or that tall ship visits and parades are a worldwide thing.

NYT got that static map image from MarineTraffic. MarineTraffic posted the actual route in motion via gps ... see link below.

That video isn’t much help…it zaps past the incident and most of it is the disabled ship being moved back up river to dock.

Was the bridge damaged?

That ship wasn’t going to fit through whether it had power or not. Where was it supposed to be going exactly??

R94, no it wasn't damaged

I want to know exactly when it lost power and how much time lapsed before it crashed. I wonder if the captain had time to inform crew and tell them to come down!

Snap, crackle, pop!

according the GPS map it left dock down river from the Brooklyn Bridge and immediately floated towards and struck and passed under Brooklyn Bridge. Then it continued floating and passed under Manhattan Bridge, and was eventually positioned in a pier up river from Manhattan Bridge.

And I suppose it must be said the tide was coming in if the river current was direction upriver. The boat seems to be moving pretty fast. That tide is strong.

I know we have plenty of apps that track planes...anything similar for ships?

The Navy personnel had been standing on the masts of the Mexican Navy ship as part of a ceremonial greeting and show of respect upon entering a port.

This tradition, known as 'manning the yards,' is a longstanding maritime custom practiced worldwide.

The sailors aboard the Cuauhtémoc appeared to have been engaged in this time-honored ritual during the harrowing crash.

Historically, the high vantage point of a ship's masts was used for lookout duties, enabling sailors to detect hazards, approaching ships, or land beyond the horizon, according to TheAge.com.

current up to 5 knots. Were they ignorant of how strong the current is or underestimated it when they left dock near the bridge? The engine gave up? they certainly did NOT time their decision to leave dock at that moment. it should have left dock when the current favoured their intended route.

I get it if this were a civilian recreational boat, those are notorious for fuckups. But this is supposedly a trained naval fleet and crew. No ability to drop an anchor? The water beneath that bridge is not deep at all, it's like 125 to 150 feet deep. The anchor would have reached the floor in under half a minute. And even if it didn't get all the way down, it would have slowed down the rate of impact.

R101 no nothing at all —no tech map service

R92 😵‍💫

well, it is mexico...what do you expect?

R106 Stephen Miller posts again.

An Academy Training Cruise it seems? Or so it’s being reported.

If this is true almost all the crew would have been students in training. Our Naval Academy has small boat cruises every summer where all but one on the boat are very un-seasoned young students.

“Our Naval Academy has small boat cruises every summer where all but one on the boat are very un-seasoned young students.”

Which this wasn’t.

Good analysis by this expert 10 hours ago.

R102, apparently their high vantage point did not help them identify the hazard that was the bridge. Yeah they were going backwards, but I would think it would be instinctual to look in the direction if it changes suddenly.

R110 adds nothing to what we’ve seen on the news. He can’t even pronounce the ship’s name.

[quote]well, it is mexico...what do you expect?

Well, it is American, what do you expect?

Are r112 and r93 the same person?

Manuel over board!

R92 and R120 are…but that’s not relevant to anything in particular

The East River is 40 feet deep under the Brooklyn Bridge, not the 125 feet mentioned in another post.

Someone asked where was it supposed to go. The NYTs article said it was going to Brooklyn to be refueled. I'm guessing it was going to go to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal (where the Queen Mary 2 docks) or the Brooklyn Marine Terminal. To get to these places, it should have headed out towards the harbor, in the opposite direction of the bridge.

Yes it should have—and we now know why it didn’t 👽

R109 no shit thank you capt obvious.

I’m not the one who made the comparison—go bitch that way^^

“ [R110] adds nothing to what we’ve seen on the news. He can’t even pronounce the ship’s name.”

He showed how the ship appeared to be going even faster than the current that was pushing it. It was leaving a wake. He opined that it may have had power but was stuck in reverse. Far from certain but it’s a possibility.

once again, if it lost power, how come the lights were still on?

It lost propulsion. A ship can still have electricity but lose propulsion. Why is this concept so difficult for people to understand?

Because it’s the DL, where people post before they read…if they read at all.

[quote] If this is true almost all the crew would have been students in training. Our Naval Academy has small boat cruises every summer where all but one on the boat are very un-seasoned young students.

Pretty sure this isn’t true. They go out on cruises, but not with all but one person being a current midshipman. Unless you are talking about taking a recreational sailboat out for a few hours.

[quote] Dude. No one checked in advance to see if the route had necessary clearance?

Dude. You didn't check the entire thread to see they did not intentionally pilot the ship under the bridge?

They had been going in another direction and lost power.

[quote] They tried to attack us! This is an act of war!

Considering a stationary American bridge defeated the pride of the Mexican navy without even trying, any possible retaliatory war fervor is greatly diminished.

Mexican navy cadet América Yamilet Sánchez, 20, ID’d as first victim in Brooklyn Bridge crash

The Brooklyn Bridge is an insatiable bottom!

R47 It wasnt supposed to pass under the bridge. I was sailing away from the bridge, lost pieer and tgen driften into it.

Why does it look like a 1700s ship?

Let me get this straight. A Mexican pirate boat filming a super gay production for a Spanish variety show sailed right into the Brooklyn Bridge because the horny captain was distracted by the pretty pirate sailors on the rigging?

[quote] It wasnt supposed to pass under the bridge.

That makes it worse.

It was used as a set for That 1770s Show

I want to run to the side and hold on to the pier and stick my legs out and kick propel it away.

But I know it would crush me to death.

It's got string lights up and looks like people were partying on it. No way that's a Navy boat.

R135, your heart was in the right place, even though your head isn’t quite right.

It looked more like a Cinco de Mayo celebration on a pontoon than a Navy ship.

Why didn’t they send out a Mayday alert? People are saying they were traveling away from the bridge, then it lost propulsion and stalled and floated back toward the bridge. They certainly had enough time to figure something out.

[quote]Considering a stationary American bridge defeated the pride of the Mexican navy without even trying

It’s pretty embarrassing. That bridge didn’t even look like it shook.

Coz they are stupid Mexicans!

They're eating the bridges!

[quote]I don't understand, how was it supposed to pass under? It's too tall! Power or no power, how was it supposed to make it thru?

It wasn't planned to sail under the bridge. The ship lost power and then drifted into the bridge.

Yea- but tell us why they really thought it would go under the bridge.

It won’t fit under the bridge! Anyone can see it.

How many dozens of times must we correct the lazy non-readers who ask "How was it supposed to pass under the bridge?"

You all need to drown in the East River, you stupid sad cunts.

It’s the Mexicans who are drowning in the East River. Because they couldn’t see the ship was too tall to fit under the bridge.

[quote] It won’t fit under the bridge! Anyone can see it.

Just use more KY

[quote]How many dozens of times must we correct the lazy non-readers who ask "How was it supposed to pass under the bridge?"

They may have read the claim that it was not supposed to pass under the bridge and don't believe it.

Yeah, no. This kind of flat affect + zero reading and information literacy, and zero critical thinking whatsoever, is why the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

Why would you bring an extra tall ship into a crowded port with a lot of bridges?

And full of migrants! Lashed to the mast, no less!

JUST RAM IT IN!

More Lube!

Made my weekend. ‘’We don’t need no harbor pilot’’

[quote]I was sailing away from the bridge, lost pieer and tgen driften into it.

I'm sorry that happened to you.

Oopsie!

Sorry, our bad!

R157 Only you can prevent Forrestal fires.

I know some on DL won't have the attention span for it, but this video provides a pretty good summary. I remember watching this guy's channel last year when Francis Scott Key Bridge was struck by a container ship & collapsed. Very informative.

r131 because your mom isn't the only person into old wood.

R125 nope you would be wrong. The small boats , picture a PT boat in size I would guess, leave Annapolis with a crew of midshipmen and one NCO. They sail north. Can’t remember if it’s Boston they end up in or not. Then they sail back. What I can’t remember but I believe this cruise takes place after Pleb year. Although maybe after Youngster?

Anyway had one in the family take that student summer cruise.

Who cares. It bears no relation to the topic at hand.

Already learned something from the video at r160 because I haven’t followed the story that closely. The training ship wasn’t a historical tall ship, ie 200 years old and wooden. It was built in the 80s and the masts were steel. He points out that if the boat had been old, -all- the masts would’ve collapsed when it hit the bridge.

The other point is that, in the dramatic picture of the crew standing on the yardarms, they are attached with safety harnesses. If they had detached in the minutes that the ship was moving astern rather than forward to scramble down the rigging, more would’ve fallen when it collided.

These points were.covered in all of the news reports…

The Wreck of the Edmundo Fitzgerald

R165, I believe it's RosenDALE.