The Mexican Navy tall ship Cuauhtémoc — a celebrated training vessel and symbol of naval pride — became the center of a maritime mystery after a fatal and bizarre collision with the Brooklyn Bridge in May. Now, a preliminary report from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reveals a troubling series of events that led to the tragedy — and leaves more questions than answers.
According to the NTSB, the Cuauhtémoc was sailing in reverse — and accelerating — when it smashed into the bridge, killing two crew members and injuring 19 others. The sequence, as detailed in the report, paints a chaotic and confused picture of miscommunication, mechanical failure, or both — though no technical fault has yet been confirmed.
Between 8:20 p.m. and 8:22 p.m., the vessel began moving backward away from Pier 17. That much was expected. But what followed wasn’t. After clearing the pier, the docking pilot ordered the ship to stop and then move slowly forward. A tugboat began pushing against the bow to assist. However, the Cuauhtémoc didn’t respond as intended.
Sadly, though perhaps unsurprisingly, the Mexican Navy is uninsured and New York will be responsible for its own repairs. pic.twitter.com/GoQR9cxnsR
— Flappr (@flapprdotnet) May 18, 2025
Instead of slowing or moving forward, the stern began swinging toward the Brooklyn Bridge, and then the ship’s backward speed nearly doubled — reaching 5.9 knots (about 6.8 mph) by the moment of impact. That is an unusual and dangerous speed for a vessel moving astern in a constrained urban waterway.
The report outlines a convoluted chain of command: the docking pilot issued “astern” orders to the ship’s captain on the conning deck, who acknowledged and translated them into Spanish. These commands were passed to another crew member on a lower deck, who then relayed them again to the crew inside the navigation bridge — where they were finally input. What should have been a straightforward process was anything but.
Then came the impact:
At 8:24 p.m., one by one, the ship’s three towering masts struck the underside of the Brooklyn Bridge. The mizzen mast hit first, followed by the main and foremast, damaging the bridge’s maintenance platform in the process. The fact that the vessel was still traveling backward at nearly 6 knots raises serious questions about how, or whether, any of the navigational commands were being effectively executed.
Importantly, both the pilot and co-pilot tested negative for alcohol and drugs, ruling out impairment. And despite the dramatic collision, the bridge itself sustained no structural damage.
Still, the most basic question remains unanswered: Why was the Cuauhtémoc accelerating in reverse toward one of the most iconic landmarks in the United States?
As it stands, the NTSB report stops short of assigning blame or identifying a definitive cause. Was it a failure in the vessel’s propulsion system? A breakdown in communication? Human error? Equipment malfunction? Nothing has been ruled out.
