Suez blocked by stuck ship!
Discussion
Simpo Two said:
Furry nuff. So the captain listens to the pilot's advice, and must then presumably decide if he's going to take it or not.
yes
But if the captain can't manoeuvre the ship competently without a pilot, how is he supposed to know whether the pilot's advice is good or bad?
All Masters are extensively trained in ship handling, on ships of the Ever given size the Master will have completed specialised courses on manoeuvring large vessels. For UK Masters spotting the signs of squat, bank effect and interaction and how to counteract it (usually slowing down!) are drummed into us from cadet through to Class 1 courses
If he is able to judge this accurately then he must be competent to do it himself, and therefore doesn't need a pilot...
The pilot is there to advise on local conditions, local regulations, berthing locations and interface with the port canal facilities such as tugs, traffic control etc. Most port authorities make it a requirement to take a pilot onboard over certain gross tonnages (typically 1500GRT) unless the Master has an exemption normally held by taking the local pilot examination.
HTHyes
But if the captain can't manoeuvre the ship competently without a pilot, how is he supposed to know whether the pilot's advice is good or bad?
All Masters are extensively trained in ship handling, on ships of the Ever given size the Master will have completed specialised courses on manoeuvring large vessels. For UK Masters spotting the signs of squat, bank effect and interaction and how to counteract it (usually slowing down!) are drummed into us from cadet through to Class 1 courses
If he is able to judge this accurately then he must be competent to do it himself, and therefore doesn't need a pilot...
The pilot is there to advise on local conditions, local regulations, berthing locations and interface with the port canal facilities such as tugs, traffic control etc. Most port authorities make it a requirement to take a pilot onboard over certain gross tonnages (typically 1500GRT) unless the Master has an exemption normally held by taking the local pilot examination.
Simpo Two said:
Mykap said:
The Master is in command. The pilot advises. The safety of the those onboard, the vessel and the environment is he Masters responsibility.
Furry nuff. So the captain listens to the pilot's advice, and must then presumably decide if he's going to take it or not.But if the captain can't manoeuvre the ship competently without a pilot, how is he supposed to know whether the pilot's advice is good or bad? If he is able to judge this accurately then he must be competent to do it himself, and therefore doesn't need a pilot...
Mykap said:
Simpo Two said:
Furry nuff. So the captain listens to the pilot's advice, and must then presumably decide if he's going to take it or not.
yes
But if the captain can't manoeuvre the ship competently without a pilot, how is he supposed to know whether the pilot's advice is good or bad?
All Masters are extensively trained in ship handling, on ships of the Ever given size the Master will have completed specialised courses on manoeuvring large vessels. For UK Masters spotting the signs of squat, bank effect and interaction and how to counteract it (usually slowing down!) are drummed into us from cadet through to Class 1 courses
If he is able to judge this accurately then he must be competent to do it himself, and therefore doesn't need a pilot...
The pilot is there to advise on local conditions, local regulations, berthing locations and interface with the port canal facilities such as tugs, traffic control etc. Most port authorities make it a requirement to take a pilot onboard over certain gross tonnages (typically 1500GRT) unless the Master has an exemption normally held by taking the local pilot examination.
HTHyes
But if the captain can't manoeuvre the ship competently without a pilot, how is he supposed to know whether the pilot's advice is good or bad?
All Masters are extensively trained in ship handling, on ships of the Ever given size the Master will have completed specialised courses on manoeuvring large vessels. For UK Masters spotting the signs of squat, bank effect and interaction and how to counteract it (usually slowing down!) are drummed into us from cadet through to Class 1 courses
If he is able to judge this accurately then he must be competent to do it himself, and therefore doesn't need a pilot...
The pilot is there to advise on local conditions, local regulations, berthing locations and interface with the port canal facilities such as tugs, traffic control etc. Most port authorities make it a requirement to take a pilot onboard over certain gross tonnages (typically 1500GRT) unless the Master has an exemption normally held by taking the local pilot examination.
Condi said:
Ayahuasca said:
In the Panama Canal the local pilot takes command of the piloted vessel. The ship’s crew has to take the pilot’s orders.
I thought this was the case for all areas. The pilots have Master Mariner qualifications? Egypt has alleged the master of the Ever Given lost control of the giant boxship that blocked the Suez Canal for six days in March.
The Wall Street Journal cited the Suez Canal Authority (SCA) as saying the 20,388-teu Evergreen-operated Ever Given (built 2018) veered left and right across the waterway before hitting a bank.
Sayed Sheisha, the SCA's chief investigator, was reported as saying: "The captain issued eight commands within 12 minutes as he tried to bring the ship back into alignment."
Owner Shoei Kisen has not commented.
The compensation case involving the vessel was adjourned by a court in Ismailia on Saturday.
This was to allow more time for talks on the amount being claimed by the SCA.
The hearing will resume on 20 June following requests from lawyers on both sides, Bloomberg reported.
The authority initially claimed more than $916m in damages.
This was lowered to $550m after the SCA said it had miscalculated the value of the cargo on the ship.
Insurers have said the demand remains too high.
Aiming for settlement
"There are endeavours to reach a settlement and because they are good clients, we are asking the court to postpone to negotiate and study the offer submitted by the owners,” Nabil Zidan, an SCA lawyer, said in court.
“Negotiations are on and there’s flexibility from both sides,” said Ahmed Abu Shanab, the shipowner’s lawyer.
Shoei Kisen has previously offered to pay $150m, according to the SCA.
But the authority has said this does not cover losses of transit fees, damage to the waterway and costs of equipment and labour during the salvage.
The Wall Street Journal cited the Suez Canal Authority (SCA) as saying the 20,388-teu Evergreen-operated Ever Given (built 2018) veered left and right across the waterway before hitting a bank.
Sayed Sheisha, the SCA's chief investigator, was reported as saying: "The captain issued eight commands within 12 minutes as he tried to bring the ship back into alignment."
Owner Shoei Kisen has not commented.
The compensation case involving the vessel was adjourned by a court in Ismailia on Saturday.
This was to allow more time for talks on the amount being claimed by the SCA.
The hearing will resume on 20 June following requests from lawyers on both sides, Bloomberg reported.
The authority initially claimed more than $916m in damages.
This was lowered to $550m after the SCA said it had miscalculated the value of the cargo on the ship.
Insurers have said the demand remains too high.
Aiming for settlement
"There are endeavours to reach a settlement and because they are good clients, we are asking the court to postpone to negotiate and study the offer submitted by the owners,” Nabil Zidan, an SCA lawyer, said in court.
“Negotiations are on and there’s flexibility from both sides,” said Ahmed Abu Shanab, the shipowner’s lawyer.
Shoei Kisen has previously offered to pay $150m, according to the SCA.
But the authority has said this does not cover losses of transit fees, damage to the waterway and costs of equipment and labour during the salvage.
zorba_the_greek said:
But the authority has said this does not cover losses of transit fees, damage to the waterway and costs of equipment and labour during the salvage.
1) I bet they charged all the transit fees as usual, just maybe a few days later.2) A bit of sand
3) Two diggers at Egyptian labour rates - call it a tenner?
Simpo Two said:
zorba_the_greek said:
But the authority has said this does not cover losses of transit fees, damage to the waterway and costs of equipment and labour during the salvage.
1) I bet they charged all the transit fees as usual, just maybe a few days later.2) A bit of sand
3) Two diggers at Egyptian labour rates - call it a tenner?
Its amazing that this incident is no longer in the spotlight of mainstream news. Informing all how the ship and crew have remained essentially hostage. At the time although it was an unfortunate circumstance with a ship blocking a main trade route it certainly opened the general public's eyes to the important of shipping.
CLYDE & Co has written to the Suez Canal Authority raising concerns over the continued delay in
granting Ever Given permission to sail and the high level of the salvage claim.
The vessel – whose grounding shut down the key waterway for six days last March – remains at
anchor in the Great Bitter Lake, on the orders of the Egyptian courts.
Although Ever Given has been declared safe to proceed, the SCA will not allow it to do so until there
is progress on the settlement of its insurance claim, initially tabled at close to $1.0bn and now reduced to
around $600m.
However, it has since hinted that it will accept a deposit in the order of $200m.
Clyde is acting for some of the cargo interests in the incident, which has seen general average declared.
Clyde disputes that the salvage element in the SCA’s claim is valid in the first place.
But even if it were, the firm contends it would represent an entirely novel application of Article 13
of the 1989 International Convention on Salvage, which Egypt has ratified.
“We have seen reports stating that the SCA has valued the property salved at around $2bn or even
$3bn,” the letter by head of cargo casualty Jai Sharma said. “Based on our experience of other
large containership casualties the cargo value on the Ever Given is likely to be in the region of $600-
700m.”
Security for the cargo on similarly-sized boxship Maersk Honam, declared a total loss after a fire in
2018, was only $105m.
The salvors had to spend more than $20m out of their own pocket and perform an 83-day service,
and then a very long tow to Jebel Ali. While the salvage claim is in arbitration and
remains confidential, the final cost did not exceed the security level, Clyde confirmed.
“We do believe that the SCA needs to greatly reduce their salvage claim to reflect the legitimate
expectations of the users of the Suez Canal, and the maritime industry in general,” said Mr Sharma.
“We should be grateful if you would confirm that you are willing to release our clients’ insured cargo,
which is entirely blameless in this whole affair, subject to the provision of reasonable security.”
granting Ever Given permission to sail and the high level of the salvage claim.
The vessel – whose grounding shut down the key waterway for six days last March – remains at
anchor in the Great Bitter Lake, on the orders of the Egyptian courts.
Although Ever Given has been declared safe to proceed, the SCA will not allow it to do so until there
is progress on the settlement of its insurance claim, initially tabled at close to $1.0bn and now reduced to
around $600m.
However, it has since hinted that it will accept a deposit in the order of $200m.
Clyde is acting for some of the cargo interests in the incident, which has seen general average declared.
Clyde disputes that the salvage element in the SCA’s claim is valid in the first place.
But even if it were, the firm contends it would represent an entirely novel application of Article 13
of the 1989 International Convention on Salvage, which Egypt has ratified.
“We have seen reports stating that the SCA has valued the property salved at around $2bn or even
$3bn,” the letter by head of cargo casualty Jai Sharma said. “Based on our experience of other
large containership casualties the cargo value on the Ever Given is likely to be in the region of $600-
700m.”
Security for the cargo on similarly-sized boxship Maersk Honam, declared a total loss after a fire in
2018, was only $105m.
The salvors had to spend more than $20m out of their own pocket and perform an 83-day service,
and then a very long tow to Jebel Ali. While the salvage claim is in arbitration and
remains confidential, the final cost did not exceed the security level, Clyde confirmed.
“We do believe that the SCA needs to greatly reduce their salvage claim to reflect the legitimate
expectations of the users of the Suez Canal, and the maritime industry in general,” said Mr Sharma.
“We should be grateful if you would confirm that you are willing to release our clients’ insured cargo,
which is entirely blameless in this whole affair, subject to the provision of reasonable security.”
Simpo Two said:
If the crew is on board, the thought of doing an 'HMS Amethyst' and getting the f
k out regardless must be tempting... I can't see how they could stop it, and even if they did it would be a real international incident.
Good point - lift anchors - crash it again for good measure (full speed this time) and fk out regardless must be tempting... I can't see how they could stop it, and even if they did it would be a real international incident.k off home to be a local celebrity/legend for a while. Simpo Two said:
If the crew is on board, the thought of doing an 'HMS Amethyst' and getting the fk out regardless must be tempting... I can't see how they could stop it, and even if they did it would be a real international incident.
There are gun towers the entire length of the Suez canal. No joke.k out regardless must be tempting... I can't see how they could stop it, and even if they did it would be a real international incident.They are more to protect the ships from bandits after a container vessel was shot at by RPGs some years ago....but the roles im sure could be revered.
Also Bitter lakes are some distance from Port Said (Northern entrance). Would not take much to blockade it.
Furthermore Ever Green has dozens of ships that need the Suez Canal. So they are stuck where they are.
zorba_the_greek said:
There are gun towers the entire length of the Suez canal. No joke.
They are more to protect the ships from bandits after a container vessel was shot at by RPGs some years ago....but the roles im sure could be revered.
Also Bitter lakes are some distance from Port Said (Northern entrance). Would not take much to blockade it.
Furthermore Ever Green has dozens of ships that need the Suez Canal. So they are stuck where they are.
The gun towers would be useful for sinking the ship in the middle of the canal.....They are more to protect the ships from bandits after a container vessel was shot at by RPGs some years ago....but the roles im sure could be revered.
Also Bitter lakes are some distance from Port Said (Northern entrance). Would not take much to blockade it.
Furthermore Ever Green has dozens of ships that need the Suez Canal. So they are stuck where they are.
zorba_the_greek said:
There are gun towers the entire length of the Suez canal. No joke.
They are more to protect the ships from bandits after a container vessel was shot at by RPGs some years ago....but the roles im sure could be revered.
Also Bitter lakes are some distance from Port Said (Northern entrance). Would not take much to blockade it.
Furthermore Ever Green has dozens of ships that need the Suez Canal. So they are stuck where they are.
I don't think even the Egyptians would open fire on a civilian vessel, especially not of such high public profile. News would be around the world in seconds. And blockading the canal would cut off their own revenue.They are more to protect the ships from bandits after a container vessel was shot at by RPGs some years ago....but the roles im sure could be revered.
Also Bitter lakes are some distance from Port Said (Northern entrance). Would not take much to blockade it.
Furthermore Ever Green has dozens of ships that need the Suez Canal. So they are stuck where they are.
At the very least rescue the crew, special forces if needs be, then the ship can be left to rust. I might even scuttle it in the channel...
Suez Canal Authority says Ever Given’s master was responsible for speed before blockage
The Suez Canal Authority has rejected a UK Club claim that the vessel whose grounding caused
a six-day shutdown of the key waterway in March was under the charge of local pilots when it
entered the southern channel.
The issue could play an important role in talks over the SCA’s claim for compensation,
now reduced to around to around $600m from an initial claim of over $900m, to which the marine
mutual must contribute as liability insurer.
In a statement this month, the club acknowledged that the master is ultimately responsible
for the vessel. The SCA responded by saying Ever Given had exceeded set speeds in the
canal, which is the sole responsibility of the master.
The Suez Canal Authority has rejected a UK Club claim that the vessel whose grounding caused
a six-day shutdown of the key waterway in March was under the charge of local pilots when it
entered the southern channel.
The issue could play an important role in talks over the SCA’s claim for compensation,
now reduced to around to around $600m from an initial claim of over $900m, to which the marine
mutual must contribute as liability insurer.
In a statement this month, the club acknowledged that the master is ultimately responsible
for the vessel. The SCA responded by saying Ever Given had exceeded set speeds in the
canal, which is the sole responsibility of the master.
zorba_the_greek said:
Your not far wrong.
Its amazing that this incident is no longer in the spotlight of mainstream news. Informing all how the ship and crew have remained essentially hostage. At the time although it was an unfortunate circumstance with a ship blocking a main trade route it certainly opened the general public's eyes to the important of shipping.
It's not unusual circumstances, there have always been issues with crews being stuck on ships for political or financial reasons.Its amazing that this incident is no longer in the spotlight of mainstream news. Informing all how the ship and crew have remained essentially hostage. At the time although it was an unfortunate circumstance with a ship blocking a main trade route it certainly opened the general public's eyes to the important of shipping.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/1...
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff