Two Dead After Mexican Navy Training Ship Crashes Into the Brooklyn Bridge
“Authorities say the boat’s captain lost control of the vessel, and Adams on Sunday morning said the ship had lost power.”
The Mexican navy training ship Cuauhtémoc crashed into the Brooklyn Bridge on Saturday night, killing two people.
New York Mayor Eric Adams said the collision injured 19. The Mexican Navy said at least 22.
“Authorities say the boat’s captain lost control of the vessel, and Adams on Sunday morning said the ship had lost power,” according to ABC7 New York
From The New York Post:
The majestic Cuauhtémoc — which has a crew of 277, mostly cadets — apparently lost power as it was sailing out of New York on its way to Iceland and the current carried it into the road deck of the bridge around 8:30 p.m., according to Mayor Eric Adams and footage of the crash.
The collision sheared off the ship’s 147-foot masts – with alarming footage capturing numerous crew members dangling for their lives from the sails and booms after the boat hit the bridge, which has a max clearance of 135 feet.
NBC New York reported that the ship arrived this week and offered tours to the public.
The Cuauhtémoc docked at Pier 17, just below the Brooklyn Bridge. It left the pier for a stop in Brooklyn to refuel before it headed to Iceland.
The ship did not intend to sail towards the bridge.
The Cuauhtémoc left Acapulco on April 6 “on a mission with the goal of exalting the seafaring spirit, strengthening naval education, and carrying the Mexican people’s message of peace and good will to the seas and ports of the world.’”
The itinerary included Jamaica, Cuba, Barbados, New York, Iceland, Scotland, England, and Spain.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The competency crisis even affects Mexico!
That was just insane
You know why the new Mexican navy only buys glass bottomed boats?
So they can see the old Mexican navy……
yes
when you are hoisting a cerveza
tossing bales of fent over the side
and dropping off “passengers into the usa
you could lose control
Meantime we have DEI-preferred personnel running ships around, refusing orders from their superiors (helicopter / airliner collision in DC), multi-million dollar planes going over the side on aircraft carriers due to “promote them anyway” policies, and other such things.
You might want to step down off that high horse until we have leaders like Halsey, Patton, Ike, and similar running things again.
x2
Sorry. That was supposed to be an uptick.
Men like that are VERY rare. Single mother homes have certainly removed the “toxic masculinity” out of men like that.
A lot of soy fillers in food might have a lot to do with it as well.
You do know that this ship was on a good-will tour. Its presence had nothing to do with immigration or smuggling. Many people enjoy seeing the majestic sailing ships that various countries maintain to train sailors so that they will be better equipped to handle what the sea throws at them.
didnt/dont care what the reason was for their being there
but glad to see the reactions of the *naval* gazers
Pier 17 is less than a mile from the Brooklyn Bridge. It is clear that the current was pushing the boat. The flags of off the starboard side, so it doesn’t appear that there was a great wind pushing against the ship.
Which begs the question, “given that ships can tack and sail against the wind, why are no sails unfurled?”
Maybe they thought that the tug (which can be seen in videos) would get to them in time, but still…..a sailing ship that cannot actually sail?
They weren’t on the open sea. A ship in a parade or floatilla is generally not under sail power. Since that vessel was lit up like a Christmas tree, it was obviously some kind of presentation and not in full sail.
I cannot fathom how the captain/pilot would not be aware that the main mast would not clear the bridge.
None of the masts cleared the bridge. The main mast missed by a lot. There’s no way this had anything to do with water level.
I looked up Brooklyn Bridge Clearance and found the NYC site that says clearance at center is: 135 ft.
I looked up the Cuauhtemoc for specs and found the height to be: 44.81 m ==> 147 ft.
That’s a big miss (huge when you take leeway needed for choppy waters, etc.).
What about just dropping anchor?
The captain/pilot as said wasn’t trying to go under the bridge. The ship was supposed to go the other direction. The sails were not unfurled for the same reason ships entering harbors all over the world do not have their captains bringing them in and out, the harbor master and tug boats do it. The tug directing the boat or the ship itself apparently lost power and had no way to control it’s backward movement. The only things I don’t understand is why the sailors didn’t leave the sails and masts when it looked like they were going to hit plus why didn’t someone drop anchor in an attempt to stop it’s movement?
They had no plans to go under the bridge.
They reversed out of their berth and were supposed to go in forward gear to motor out of New York Harbor.
You will note that they hit the bridge going stern first.
No ship would ever plan to go under a bridge facing stern first
Lot of freeboard on that vessel. Looking at flags in the video, a Beaufort scale estimation would be winds 11-16 MPH. Your estimate may vary. And- winds were headed right towards the bridge judging from the video. That’s a LOT of force to overcome.
And- they would not have been able to tack in a narrow channel, Which is where they were.
Square rigged ships are fine under sail in the open ocean, not so fine under sail in a narrow channel or crowded port.
Gonna disagree on the direction of the wind. It appears to be heading across the ship as evidenced by the direction of the flag on the stern.
For hundreds of years square rigged ships have sailed into “narrow” harbors and gone out under sail.
Lost power but all those exterior lights were shining brightly.
Where was the Harbor pilot when this happened?
Presumably on the bridge…watching it all unfold, helpless. Irrespective of the presence of a pilot, the ship’s master is still in command of the ship (in almost all countries) and ultimately responsible, even more so that there was (an alleged) loss of propulsion and navigational control (steering on a ship that size is aided by hydraulics, that likely weren’t functional once propulsion was lost).
You can see in some video angles the harbor tug at flank speed trying to get in front of the ship before it hit the bridge. I had read that the Cuauhtémoc was aided by a tug as she left her berth, which would have been required for a foreign-flagged ship of her size.
I wasn’t aware Mexico even had a navy!
Whoa, It’s actually pretty big.
A terrible tragedy. RIP, and speedy recovery for survivers.
In other tragic news, the world has learned Mexico has a navy.
Albeit a single ship eco friendly wind powered Navy…
Renewables Unite!
DFM
LMAO
HUH?
FS
(Fur Shure)
just. a follow up on a LI story from the other day
rhode island hoisting the plo flag at their capitol
RI also wants to
(breit) Rhode Island Democrats Push Semiautomatic Rifle, Shotgun, Pistol, Ban
hoist the enemy of freedoms flag while you push for the good people to lose any chances to defend themselves
I have to wonder why a ship that is too tall to fit under a bridge would sail down the river to dock right before that bridge – which I guess is downriver, on top of everything?? The ship went into a one-way river that required it to exit against the current or smash into a bridge in the other direction? Is this standard operating procedure in busy waterways? I really can’t imagine so … because it’s so friggin retarded.
Ships can lose power (as we saw in the Francis Scott Key bridge disaster) so one would assume that river traffic takes into account the possibility of any ship losing power at any time. A ship that cannot fit under a bridge should not be allowed to approach that bridge from upriver. This ain’t rocket surgery.
Not a one way river- not technically a river at all. That’s a whole other matter. People in general seem terribly ignorant of all the technical terms involved in waterways. Current runs north when the tide is coming in, south when going out, and a few minutes of slack time at turnover as it changes. All the waterway names in NYC are just extensions of NY harbor, with names attached to differentiate where they are and what they resemble.
It’s “one-way” for the ship in question, since it cannot clear the bridge, so it is dead-ended by it.
And while the current isn’t always in one direction it was in THE WRONG DIRECTION when this ship, that could only go one way in that river, was against the current.
“I have to wonder why a ship that is too tall to fit under a bridge would sail down the river to dock right before that bridge”
I have to wonder why an RV that is too tall to fit under a bridge would drive down the freeway and stop right before that bridge.
(Even dumber are the ones who don’t stop.)
RVs don’t tend to drift on the road with the traffic …
Minor difference.
Ran out of gas? Didn’t have anchor? Didn’t know clear height? Still drinking from cinco de mayo party?
“That’s ‘cinco de quatro’! Sheesh. How dumb and unsophisticated Americans are …” — Barky, sooper-geenyuss.
OK, Psycho Domingo. 😉
Make mine siete de nueve.
This what happens when you hire those day laborers from the Home Depot parking lot for your ship crew.
Aw, come on, that’s funny!
Sad, RIP to the two who died. These ships are typically crewed by young cadets. I’ve watched several videos and am nearly certain the ship was running in reverse, you can clearly see a wake from the ship as it moves astern thru the water, so it was moving faster than any current. Maybe a mechanical failure. I’m not familiar with this ship, but some vessels have variable pitch props that adjust the blades to engage forward or reverse thrust. Some engines actually run backwards, “shifting” these involves stopping and restarting in the opposite direction. It’s possible they engaged reverse to get off the dock, and for whatever reason could not shift. I don’t see any forward thrust prop wash off the stern even as it went under the bridge. Even if they managed to disengage reverse, the momentum would carry a ship this size a long way.
I’ve been a sailor since 1972, and I was in NYC for the bicentennial parade of tall ships on July 4, 1976. Sad to see something like this happen to one of them and the crew.
My irony meter was pegged just to learn that a “Mexican Navy training ship” had sails and masts. The Batsignal of ethnic japery has now turned from every other line of national descent, at least for a short while.