I don’t know for sure but most likely the captain was not in control of the vessel at the time. It was probably an Egyptian pilot. I read that two were on board. That’s not to say the buck won’t stop at the captain.
Whack-a-Mole the idea the buck stops with the Captain is a layperson’s trope. People in the industry are more sophisticated. You might want to bear in mind this ain’t my first rodeo. I’ve been involved in ship casualties for 30 years. Several more expensive than this is likely to be. At least three of which the master kept his job.
You don’t know jack, sorry.
I should have known my hastily typed post smelled fishy.
You’re right. I don’t know jack.
But are you really telling us the captain is not the person ultimately responsible for their ship?
Keeping your job after a serious accident tells us nothing.
Am in logistics with a international business
We have just completed freight negotiations for FY21 (Mar-21 to Apr-22) and contracted containerised freight rates have more than doubled vs FY20 and even more again for spot rates.
This delay will cause a significant knock-on effect in all global supply chains with an ocean freight (even airfreight) element as sailings are missed and limited container space gets snapped up.
We are already seeing signs that spot rates are increasing.
The shipping magnates sure know how to monetarise opportunities.
I’m curious what three those were.
This is international news so if you have three bigger ones (you actually suggest there were more than three) I am willing to bet they were worldwide news too. I’d be interested to read about them (really).
Firstly I’m a lawyer so no I’m not going to tell you. If you search for major ship casualties over the last 30 years in Australasia and the Western Pacific, there was a fair chance I was involved to a greater or lesser degree.
Secondly whether things make the news depends on if they make pretty pictures not how much they actually cost, so no at least two weren’t in the news.
As the Ever Given casualty hasn’t resolved I don’t know how serious it is going to be. I started out more optimistic about how much it was going to cost - but as I see more pictures and hear more from professional sources I’m getting more pessimistic.
Fourthly I’m going to tell you that at least in this context the master is not the person ultimately responsible for their ship in all contexts. It’s a trope. There are a (IMHO shameful) number of laws that make the master responsible, sometimes criminally, for matters entirely outside his control. But as I said, within the industry it is well understood that such laws diverge from reality massively.
As examples, I know of casualties caused by steering failure, uncharted reefs, and the actions of junior officers, in ways the master could do nothing about. Whatever the master may be made liable for at law, internally the master’s record can be unharmed by such things.
UPS trucks carry large tarp in them and when one gets disabled or in a wreck the first thing a driver is supposed to do – presumably after making the injured are tended to – is to throw it over the truck. I don’t think they’re large enough to drape the whole truck though so that Pullman brown peeking out would seem to make it moot.
I know there is nothing preventing you from telling us. Saying you were involved with a case is not an attorney/client privilege thing. It is public record.
Aren’t there pilots working for the canal and aren’t they the ones responsible for maneuvering the vessel? I would say that, yes, the ship’s master is responsible in the sense any commanding officer would be; however, the particulars of getting the result the master wants (transit the canal) are in the hands of the pilot who is familiar with the waters of the canal.
Whether it’s public record or not depends on whether there was litigation. And there’s client confidentiality issues. Whether the master kept his job is not public record even if my involvement is.
I would also thoroughly dox myself.
I have no idea who was at the helm and, despite previous posts of mine, I can see how no one could be at fault (mechanical failure that was not a result of negligence). That said I read this is a relatively new ship so mechanical failure is unlikely but still…could happen.
We can generate a lot of whatifs. We will have to wait and see.
I still think the captain is not a happy camper right now.
I’m not sure of the position on responsibility of Suez pilots. Generally, a master retains ultimate responsibility regardless of the pilot being on board. The extent to which an employer would hold this against a master after an incident probably depends on the detail. Ship handling errors while the master is on the bridge in pilotage waters tend to land upon the master, pilot’s presence notwithstanding.
There are some specific places and jurisdictions where the pilots literally take control, and responsibility for damage. I believe Panama Canal may be one, not sure, and not sure about Suez. Of course, regardless of the law, even in such places a master who stood by and let a pilot do something unwise without stepping in when he could have is not likely to be viewed kindly by his employer, regardless of the law.
As to “responsible in the sense any commanding officer would be” you are talking military language in a civil context. What does “responsible” mean here? The master of a merchant vessel may be subject to penalty under certain laws. They may be civilly liable in certain circumstances. There is no broad law that “the commanding officer is responsible”.
Fair enough. I get it.
The Panama Canal definitely insists its own pilots are at the helm when ships go through it. Or at least that’s what they claimed when I visited a couple of years ago.
It would be interesting to know if that was the same in the Suez.
Not very complimentary about the pilots:
Capt Ranjan Chowdhury, who sailed the Suez canal frequently during his 35-year maritime career, said the canal pilots, mandated by the SCA to steer transiting ships and aid tricky navigation on the waterway, contributed to problems.
“The canal pilots play music inside the bridge, and there’s a lack of AIS-supported backup,” he said, in reference to the tracking system used on ships. “They connect to it with a computer, but the canal pilots are very over-confident when it comes to navigating by sight. Every time they’re eating food, smoking, talking a lot and asking for bribes which keeps them very busy. Navigation is an art, and if you lose concentration for a second while navigating a narrow channel, it should be investigated.”
“We call the Suez canal Marlboro country,” he added. “If we provide them with a big carton of Marlboro cigarettes they’re happy. Not every captain has done their homework before transiting through the Suez canal.”
Chowdhury was equally sceptical about efforts to examine the incident. “The investigation will not be transparent, and it will take a long time due to bureaucracy,” he said. “More importantly, the Suez Canal Authority doesn’t take responsibility, the ship’s captain is the primary individual responsible, which is a loophole compared to the Panama canal.”
There was an email maritime gossip newsletter that I used to get which used to have a running joke that was entirely serious (if you know what I mean). Every year or so there would be an announcement published along the lines of “The number of cartons of cigarettes that are not required as bribes to transit the Suez canal has increased. The former going rate of six cartons that were not necessary to effect the transit has now increased to seven.”
I know that they’re from the age of sail, but I can’t be the only one wondering “What would Hornblower do?” and “What would Jack Aubrey do?”
They’ve both run aground more than once; in the Aubrey/Maturin The Far Side of the World, a drunken pilot gets them stuck on a reef.
And isn’t one of the first things they do when they want to lighten ship is to “start the water”? Has the Ever Given done that yet? Or do these cargo ships not carry as much water, proportionally, as sailing ships did?
As mentioned upthread, they will be deballasting to the extent it will help and is possible, subject to stability concerns. Given that stability calculations are - with the aid of onboard computers - easy and deballasting can be done in hours, I have to suspect that if it was going to solve the problem, the vessel would have been refloated days ago.
‘For want of a nail the battle was lost.’
For want of a carton of cigarettes, world shipping was disrupted. Maybe. 