Difference between revisions of "Talk:2950: Situation"
| (5 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--> | <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--> | ||
For reference, the bridge in question is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. [[User:Trimeta|Trimeta]] ([[User talk:Trimeta|talk]]) 18:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC) | For reference, the bridge in question is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. [[User:Trimeta|Trimeta]] ([[User talk:Trimeta|talk]]) 18:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC) | ||
| + | :Noting that in all cases ''except'' the Tacoma Narrows, the design flaws were but a part of the issue, with operational decisions at the time playing a big part in the designed-in risks becoming reasons for an actual incident. The bridge could never have been "run safely", once built, unlike trying to ignore bunker fires whilst speeding through iceberg-alley or conducting stress tests in parallel with other non-standard procedures or just not refusing to conduct flights under certain weather conditions. Yes, the other things, by skipping the 'bad end' they actually had, would still be susceptible to future incidents (lessons not now having been properly learnt, or even known to be learnable, so still liable to being mishandled). | ||
| + | :But the only thing that could have saved the Tacoma bridge was to have been so much more alert (and less 'amused') by Galloping Gerti and immediately rushed into developing the better analytical models that could lead to an expensive in-situ retrofit (as with the Millenium Bridge, across the Thames, though that didn't have unavoidable wind issues and ''could'' be managed 'at leisure', whilst being made safer). And, without the rather spectacular demonstration of failure, it was probably not on the cards to 'not do nothing', even if it wasn't already too late to avert history in any reasonable way. | ||
| + | :It's human hubris/failings (at various levels) in each case, of course. But operational and design-time errors do more damage in combination than either by themselves. (Case in point, no deaths from the bridge collapse... actually handled pretty well, considering.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 22:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC) | ||
And for the record, the Challenger engineers *did* warn about the O-ring risk, but were overridden by management. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.95|172.68.35.95]] 19:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC) | And for the record, the Challenger engineers *did* warn about the O-ring risk, but were overridden by management. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.95|172.68.35.95]] 19:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | It would have been so easy to draw a dam about to burst just behind the ocean liner {{unsigned ip|172.70.43.54|20:22, 24 June 2024}} | ||
| + | :Any particular dam-burst? There are many, but I'm not sure that we have an 'iconic' one... There's perhaps Taum Sauk, Vajont Dam, Brumadinho dam, El Cobre, Uttarakhand, Dale Dike Reservoir or Derna, picking a selection of notable ones. You couldn't count the deliberate Operation Chastise breaches or the (probably-)deliberate Kakhovka Dam one, nor all those 'nearly a disaster' ones (like Ulley and Toddbrook, two relatively recent concerns in the UK). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 22:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Winds caused by maintenance on a nuclear reactor... What? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.208.173|172.69.208.173]] 22:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:46, 24 June 2024
For reference, the bridge in question is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Trimeta (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Noting that in all cases except the Tacoma Narrows, the design flaws were but a part of the issue, with operational decisions at the time playing a big part in the designed-in risks becoming reasons for an actual incident. The bridge could never have been "run safely", once built, unlike trying to ignore bunker fires whilst speeding through iceberg-alley or conducting stress tests in parallel with other non-standard procedures or just not refusing to conduct flights under certain weather conditions. Yes, the other things, by skipping the 'bad end' they actually had, would still be susceptible to future incidents (lessons not now having been properly learnt, or even known to be learnable, so still liable to being mishandled).
- But the only thing that could have saved the Tacoma bridge was to have been so much more alert (and less 'amused') by Galloping Gerti and immediately rushed into developing the better analytical models that could lead to an expensive in-situ retrofit (as with the Millenium Bridge, across the Thames, though that didn't have unavoidable wind issues and could be managed 'at leisure', whilst being made safer). And, without the rather spectacular demonstration of failure, it was probably not on the cards to 'not do nothing', even if it wasn't already too late to avert history in any reasonable way.
- It's human hubris/failings (at various levels) in each case, of course. But operational and design-time errors do more damage in combination than either by themselves. (Case in point, no deaths from the bridge collapse... actually handled pretty well, considering.) 172.70.162.186 22:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
And for the record, the Challenger engineers *did* warn about the O-ring risk, but were overridden by management. 172.68.35.95 19:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
It would have been so easy to draw a dam about to burst just behind the ocean liner 172.70.43.54 (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2024 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- Any particular dam-burst? There are many, but I'm not sure that we have an 'iconic' one... There's perhaps Taum Sauk, Vajont Dam, Brumadinho dam, El Cobre, Uttarakhand, Dale Dike Reservoir or Derna, picking a selection of notable ones. You couldn't count the deliberate Operation Chastise breaches or the (probably-)deliberate Kakhovka Dam one, nor all those 'nearly a disaster' ones (like Ulley and Toddbrook, two relatively recent concerns in the UK). 172.70.162.186 22:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Winds caused by maintenance on a nuclear reactor... What? 172.69.208.173 22:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
