I was a US Civilian Mariner (aka merchant marine) for 16 years or so and a licensed officer for the last 4 years. I recently changed professions due to a welcome addition to my family that I can't bear to leave for months at a time! I'm not here to tell you the Ever Given situation isn't meaningful, I think it is. What I can do is tell you what it's like to live and work in the industry, share my training and experience with large ocean going vessels. Basically I'd like to help dispel nonsense so we can all get to the truth and look good doing it!
I just got off work and I'm starting my weekend, so I'll be back to answer any questions after a good sleep.
Yes, 30mph wind is plenty to be a problem. It gets a little complicated after that. If they lost steering or propulsion they'd be screwed. Otherwise they would have to angle into the wind to maintain a course down the channel... The ship would appear to movea little bit sideways over the ground (we called it crabbing). If the wind is high enough, there's a problem. Get pushed into the bank or turn and make the effective width of the ship so large you touch the banks.
The resistance from water changes with speed. Even a 200k ton ship floating in a placid lake will be pushed around by a gentle breeze.
Sorry, all that aside, I've been on the helm steering ships 3/4 that size. I felt the wind. A lot.
I've been around the cape. It's nasty as fuck. Yes, very dangerous. The only thing I can say is that a well maintained modern large steel ship can do it. Personally I'd rather not do it again!
The 'helm room' is called the bridge. Or the wheelhouse. The number of people depends on what's going on... On a US flag vessel in open ocean it's 2. In the suez, there's at least a canal pilot (local captain that takes you through) a ships officer and a helmsman (an able seaman). The ship's captain should and probably does spend a lot of time during the suez transiton the bridge, but this takes a day our two. People gotta sleep.
Dick butt was deliberate. No question in my mind. They were not at anchor. Have you seen the time lapse? Ships don't sail over each others anchors (mostly). And they covered way too much area. How long is the chain? No. Many times we would 'slow bell' or 'putter around slowly' in circles rather than drop anchor because of reasons. I've Personally been involved in writing initials, drawing Smiley faces and all kinds of stupid shit to kill time.
The helm position I covered on a light cruiser I served on, as an unskilled seamen would have trouble compensating for moderate seas from port or starboard-"mind your helm" is a call I dreaded... :)
The anchor info is top-notch and for real. When we transited we only were stopped one time waiting for traffic to clear and that canal is a busy place.
I think this is it from yesterday but I had to download the video and play it back in VLC.
https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/a3EwyV8_460svav1.mp4
From VesselFinder on Youtube:
Controversial track of the container ship Ever Given that blocked Suez Canal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5IKbYcLgQA
Container ship Ever Given blocked Suez Canal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGXTrcQ5wm8
Question. There seem to be 2 competing theories floating around about how this happened. The first is that a power outage was engineered in order to cause loss of control. Speculate. Under normal circumstances with an alert crew, could a loss of power under specific conditions be guaranteed to cause an accident like we saw? Would only average winds be enough to cause the problem? Is this something that requires a very specific set of environmental circumstances, or would almost any power outage from a ship this size in the Suez result in the events we saw?
The second theory is that it was deliberate action by the crew. The dick-pic seems to confirm that if this was the case, then at least one person on the crew was likely involved. Whether or not the canal pilot was a part of the conspiracy is unknown. It seems possible that a determined crewman could have chosen a time when the canal pilot was indisposed to execute his maneuver. Again, speculate. What is the minimum complement of crew that would need to be incentivized in order to guarantee success of a mission such as the above? And it is realistic to assume this was done without the assistance of the canal pilot?
Assume now you are an intelligence organization that wants to make this happen, and you know you have only one shot with this specific vessel. Which of the above 2 scenarios is more likely to yield success and would be easier to effect? Your most important consideration is that you do not want this mission to fail.
Assuming we ignore the possibility that this was really all just an accident and random chance, is there a 3rd mechanism we have failed to consider here?
What do you think about sabotage of the steering system?
It would be easy and effective. And easy to make it look like poor maintenance. Could be. But without more information, I'd just be guessing.