Mexican navy says ship's pilot in deadly bridge crash was from New York
'The ship must be controlled by a specialized harbor pilot from the New York government,' Admiral Raymundo Pedro Morales Angeles said at a press conference.
Morales Angeles acknowledged there was not much time for the pilot to react to the situation, possibly as little as 80 to 90 seconds.
Two soldiers from the Mexican navy were killed and 22 others were injured during the incident, which collapsed all three of the ship's masts. The event was captured on video by onlookers and quickly spread on social media.
The dead were identified as América Sánchez, 20, from Veracruz, and Adal Jair Maldonado Marcos, 23, from Oaxaca. In interviews with Mexico News Daily, family members talked about Sanchez's aspirations to become a naval engineer, and Maldonado's long-held dream of following his father's path as a sailor.
The ship, which had 277 people on board, was in the midst of a 254-day global goodwill tour, beginning with a 6 April departure from Acapulco, on Mexico's Pacific coast, and spent five days docked in New York City.
New York police said the ship lost power as it left the harbor for Iceland, and was sucked toward the bridge by the current. The ship, at 157ft tall (48m), was unable to fit under the clearance of the Brooklyn Bridge, at 134.5ft (41m).
A member of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was unclear as to how police discerned the ship lost power, but said there were no structural integrity concerns related to the Brooklyn Bridge itself.
Onlookers reported seeing crewmembers hanging from the ships masts and beams while awaiting rescue.
A full investigation into the ship's crash is being handled by the NTSB. A preliminary report is expected to be issued in under 30 days, but the full investigation will likely take over a year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
7 hours ago
- Telegraph
The Chinese navy may be big, but it has shown itself truly incompetent
In a spectacular own-goal that exposes the perils of aggressive posturing, two Chinese vessels – a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) destroyer and a China Coast Guard (CCG) cutter – smashed into each other last week while chasing a Philippine Coast Guard vessel in the disputed South China Sea. The incident, near Scarborough Shoal, almost certainly resulted in sailors on the Chinese cutter being killed. Bullying like this is commonplace there but when it merges with such poor seamanship, grey-zone activity quickly moves to the daft-zone as comedy and tragedy merge to create a deadly maritime farce. The clash unfolded during a Philippine mission to aid local fishermen at Scarborough Shoal, a submerged reef about 140 miles west of Luzon, firmly within the Philippines' exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The BRP Suluan, a 270-ton Philippine patrol vessel, was escorting supply boats when the CCG cutter 3104 – a repurposed Type 056 corvette – gave chase at high speed, blasting water cannons and attempting hazardous blocking manoeuvres as they have done so many times before. Enter the PLAN's Type 052D destroyer stage left, literally. She is a 7,500-ton behemoth armed to the teeth with guns and missiles, who had conducted her own close passes in the run up to the collision. And by close passes, I mean inside 10 yards, at which range any margin for error has long since gone. Video was taken from the Suluan over her stern and sees the Chinese cutter weaving as it approaches her stern at high speed. The next thing we see is the bow of the warship looming impossibly close to the stern of the Suluan and the bow of the cutter. Turns out, it was impossible. The next time we see the cutter, it is stopped in the water with its bow folded in like paper. Some thought both ships were attempting to try and sandwich the Suluan. I don't agree as that requires a level of coordination and understanding that was clearly absent. More likely is that both Chinese vessels, with the drama of it all, got target fixation which in turn caused them to lose situational awareness (SA) of the other vessel. How the coastguard vessel managed this is a puzzle given that the warship was right in front of them but they did – the Coastguard sailors in the bows who bravely put a fender out reacted faster than the team on the bridge. It's also clear that the Suluan was handled well throughout, unruffled when the two Chinese ships got close on previous passes and consistently manoeuvring to be a difficult target. In these situations speed is everything. The Suluan was a couple of knots slower than the coastguard cutter and as much as seven slower than the warship. Getting away fully was never an option. Although no deaths have been confirmed it is unlikely that any of the Chinese coastguard sailors who were on the fo'c'sle of their cutter during the collision escaped. Subsequent videos have made much of a red mist seen coming from the bows of the warship as the cutter disappeared from the camera's view. It makes no difference at all to the sailors or their families but this was unlikely to be blood. The bows of ships contain a large anchor cable locker full of rust and dust, all of which would have been violently ejected as the PLAN ship crumpled it like foil. The warship's post-collision behaviour was even more surprising. Under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) vessels must render assistance after a collision. Yet the destroyer barely slowed either for this (breach of law) or to check their own watertight integrity (a breach of common sense). We can see two small holes visible in the port bow, but what if it was holed below the waterline? Basic damage control says you slow to check and if you're slick, that only takes a minute. They didn't though. I'm not sure if this was panic and lack of experience by the captain or indicative of a 'press on regardless' wartime mentality. I have noted before that the downside of building so many new warships a year is that you can't generate experience fast enough – some PLAN captains have spent less than eight years at sea – so it could be inexperience rather than bad attitude. I would like to know though as the difference is significant. Manoeuvring multiple warships in close proximity like this is doable. I've done it as a frigate captain working alongside a US destroyer at very close quarters protecting minesweepers from onrushing fast attack craft. In that case, the US captain and I had spent an evening sometime prior mapping it out. The Cod Wars was probably the last time the Royal Navy was asked to be this aggressive ship-on-ship and it didn't work well then either. Warships now are built for speed and manoeuvrability and are not designed to hit other ships. If you can avoid it, you do. Unless, like the other proponents of daft-zone manoeuvring, Russia and Iran, you don't care. To finish off the incident, in a demonstration of ice-cold professionalism, the Suluan slows before jumping on the radio to offer assistance to the now bowless cutter. Good work. Which brings me to the broader point of what Beijing thinks this behaviour will achieve. I understand that they are trying to normalise their illegal claims there but the risk vs reward in this sort of case makes it an odd way to do it. It reminds me of when the Iranian small boats would swarm you as you transited the Strait of Hormuz. It doesn't really intimidate or stop you going, it just makes you wonder why they are doing it and when they do it badly, it diminishes your respect for them as operators. None of this is new. Beijing's forces have caused hundreds of incidents in the South China Sea alone in the past year, from ramming resupply missions at Second Thomas Shoal to water-cannoning fishermen. Hitting one of their own is new, but the mindset is not. Up until now most of the aggressive behaviour has happened in the South China Sea as China continues to ignore the Hague ruling against its 'Nine Dash Line' claim and treat most of the Sea like it's theirs. But just now there are also five Chinese ice breakers off the coast of Alaska, described as 'research vessels' and manoeuvring just outside the Alaskan EEZ. This is designed to test legal systems and stretch resources: but how long before things become dangerous there, or off the coast of the UK? Likewise, it's inevitable that China's rapidly developing nuclear submarine threat will start poking around in US and European underwater infrastructure in the way Russia has been for decades, if it's not happening already. Personally, I don't have any hope that this latest mishap will alter China's strategic behaviour. It's embarrassing, and the Chinese captains will pay the price for that, but it won't make them stop. At the tactical level I would imagine the PLAN and other branches of their maritime militia will now be learning how to better coordinate at sea. Meanwhile everyone who is on the receiving end of this maritime buffoonery knows that they are dealing with a dangerous mix of recklessness and inexperience. It's comedic that the Chinese hit one of their own and tragic that it resulted in deaths – I think those two can coexist. My initial thought when I saw the video was 'play stupid games, win stupid prizes' and despite the fatalities revealed since, I think that's about right. So, as ever, it's about alliances, treaties, cooperation and a collective sense that we will not tolerate this behaviour because when we do, it becomes the next normal. Then it escalates again until a conflict-triggering accident becomes inevitable. We are approaching this now.
BBC News
12 hours ago
- BBC News
Shrewsbury woman 'fights for peace' after father's war death
Judy Arliss was just 19 months old when her father died on board the steamship SS Khedive Ismail on 12 February 1944. Reginald Arliss was a Petty Officer in the Royal Navy, and was among 1,297 people killed when the vessel was torpedoed by a Japanese submarine in the Indian years on from VJ Day, and more than 81 years since her father's death at age 37, Ms Arliss still vows to "fight for pacificism until the day I die". The 83-year-old, who is a Quaker, added she is "very proud" of her life-long commitment to peace. On 5 February 1944 the SS Khedive Ismail left Mombasa, Kenya, where Ms Arliss' father was stationed, carrying 1,348 passengers including 271 Royal Navy personnel and more than 80 women, most who were nurses. Four torpedoes were fired by a Japanese submarine, and "the ship went down in three minutes on a Sunday afternoon, with the band playing," Ms Arliss said. The sinking of the transport vessel killed 1,220 men and 77 women, and according to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, was the largest loss of servicewomen in a single incident in Commonwealth military history. The Japanese submarine was later sunk by the destroyers and cruisers accompanying the convoy. Before Ms Arliss was born, her mother Margery Arliss was evacuated to Shrewsbury after being bombed out of her flat in Liverpool."She had an aunt in Shrewsbury, and she was given a train ticket and got on the next train to Shrewsbury," Ms Arliss mother ended up living near family in Meole Brace, and Ms Arliss, who still lives in the Shropshire market town, said she "had a wonderful five years living there going to school."The impact of her father's death in the war meant Ms Arliss ended up "moving house 43 times" as her mother, who was made a widow aged 28, looked for work in housekeeping. The 83-year-old said she has "been through a few religions", before settling on the Quaker faith 40 years ago. "Obviously, I'm a pacifist, which I'm very proud of - I will preach pacifism until the day I die," she added. Quakers are members of a group with Christian roots that began in England in the 1650s - the formal title of the movement is the Society of Friends or the Religious Society of Friends. The group has a long tradition of opposing war and working in the pursuit of peace. "I'm proud to say I went to Greenham Common and various other pacifist things," Ms Arliss added."What's the point in hating anyone? It only burns you up."From 1981, thousands of women took part in protests and set up camp in opposition to 96 US Air Force nuclear warheads being stored at the RAF base in Berkshire. The camp became a focal point of anti-nuclear sentiment in the UK, and many protesters highlighted their role as mothers aiming to make the world a safer place for their children. Ms Arliss finds VE Day and VJ Day in particular tough to said she was "crying all the time" watching this year's 80th anniversary coverage, adding: "I'm not a royalist, but I liked what the King and Queen and the Royal Family did, they put the survivors centre stage. "I felt [it was] necessary to watch it." Follow BBC Shropshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Telegraph
Submarine exam resits ‘put Britain's nuclear deterrent credibility at risk'
Britain's nuclear deterrent risks a 'potentially catastrophic' loss of credibility because submarine captains are being allowed to resit their command exams. The Royal Navy's Perisher course, which tests whether officers are made of the right stuff to take charge of a nuclear submarine, is revered by navies around the world because students only have one chance to pass its gruelling final test. Yet the Navy has now admitted that students are being allowed to retake Perisher's final sea phase. Former submariners expressed concern to The Telegraph about the change in policy, warning that the watering down of the course risked jeopardising the credibility of those in charge of Britain's nuclear deterrent. There is growing public concern over the state of the Navy, with unprecedented numbers of ships and submarines unable to put to sea through a combination of mechanical defects and crew shortages. Rob Forsyth, a former Teacher, or chief instructor, of Perisher in the 1970s explained that the course's famous pass-or-leave ethos had bred the best of submarine captains among Western navies. 'The commanding officer is akin to God and must not be thought to have a weakness,' said Mr Forsyth. 'My view then, and still is, that there were some who could, some who never could and a very few who could but lacked the confidence at first to know this and needed a push to show them they could be safe and competent COs [commanding officers]. 'Some of these got there fine, always viewed as my success stories, but some remained marginal and had to be failed. To give them a second go would have been to weaken the whole concept of Perisher and undermine the relationship of trust between crew and captain who would know that he was a 'round again' qualifier.' His sentiments were echoed by another former Teacher from the early 2010s, Ryan Ramsey, who said: 'I have two issues with reruns. First, if you've already seen the sea phase, you know the scenarios. That short-term familiarity can hide the true weaknesses the course is designed to expose. 'Second, this isn't a driving test. Passing Perisher means you're trusted to take a nuclear submarine and its crew into harm's way. If you fail, fail again, then pass, you may carry a credibility problem into command, and credibility is everything when the stakes are military, political and potentially catastrophic.' Student evades four 'enemy' warships' During Perisher, would-be captains are put in charge of a submarine under the watchful eye of a qualified Teacher. Students are put through a gruelling four-phase course lasting up to five months. The final phase of Perisher is a practical exam with the student evading up to four 'enemy' warships trying to hunt down and sink the trainee's boat. A naval insider said that if Perisher staff feel a student needs more experience, he can be sent back to sea and retake the course again later in his career. 'This normally only happens during Phases 1-3. It would be exceptional to happen on Phase Four but is not excluded,' said the insider. It is not known whether any current submarine commanders have passed after resitting Phase 4. A Royal Navy spokesman said that 'unsuccessful candidates on the Submarine Command Course have been able to reapply since 2013' and said 'the high standards required to pass have not changed'. 'Candidates who are initially unsuccessful may go on to be reselected, but only once they have demonstrated their potential while gaining additional experience in the fleet,' the spokesman said. Mr Ramsey said: 'In 2013, I became the first Perisher Teacher to take a rerun student – someone removed from the Submarine Command Course before the sea phase,' he said. 'I didn't ask why at the time; I wanted my assessment to be entirely objective. He was the lead student in the simulator phase, but when we went to sea, I failed him. Later, I learnt my predecessor had removed him for the exact same reason. We agreed as an organisation not to try that again.' When asked if his statement claiming that students have been able to resit the Perisher course since 2013 was accurate, the Navy spokesman said he had nothing to add.
