Suez blocked by stuck ship!
Discussion
Talksteer said:
Evoluzione said:
Well it doesn't go very fast and the cars have individual brakes, so not a particularly massive distance.
Simpo Two said:
SpeckledJim said:
Some kind of train version of a cable car.
Where the container is introduced to its moving train carriage seamlessly, and extracted at the other end, whilst the train drives a continuous loop.
I think the device you're heading towards is 'conveyor belt' Where the container is introduced to its moving train carriage seamlessly, and extracted at the other end, whilst the train drives a continuous loop.
Or some redesign of the canal in the manner of what they do to a ten-pin bowling lane for a kids' party.
Talksteer said:
Evoluzione said:
Well it doesn't go very fast and the cars have individual brakes, so not a particularly massive distance.hidetheelephants said:
Literally because the force required to move along the track <<< the force required to move across the track. That's why trains work. They should build a giant conveyor like an airport baggage reclaim for containers. 
No they shouldn't, because the conveyor would then be long enough for the containers to gain enough lift to take off. Let's be reasonable here.
TVR_Steve said:
hidetheelephants said:
Literally because the force required to move along the track <<< the force required to move across the track. That's why trains work. They should build a giant conveyor like an airport baggage reclaim for containers.
No they shouldn't, because the conveyor would then be long enough for the containers to gain enough lift to take off. Let's be reasonable here.
Are those african or european containers?hidetheelephants said:
TVR_Steve said:
hidetheelephants said:
Literally because the force required to move along the track <<< the force required to move across the track. That's why trains work. They should build a giant conveyor like an airport baggage reclaim for containers.
No they shouldn't, because the conveyor would then be long enough for the containers to gain enough lift to take off. Let's be reasonable here.
Are those african or european containers?Latest in this sorry saga.
Egyptian court rejects Ever Given owner’s appeal against detention AN Egyptian court has rejected an appeal by the
Japanese owner of containership Ever Given (IMO: 9811000) against the vessel’s detention in the Suez
Canal, where it blocked traffic for six days in March after becoming grounded.
A validation hearing took place at the Ismailia Economic Appeals Court on May 22.
In a reserved judgment issued on May 23, the court rejected the appeal by Shoei Kisen Kaisha for the
release of the vessel, which was arrested by the Suez Canal Authority until compensation is paid for the
incident that backed up hundreds of ships.
However, it accepted the owners’ objection that the appeals court “was not competent to hear the
validation proceedings”, according to a statement by the UK P&I club. That has now been referred to the
court of first instance for a hearing on May 29.
“Ever Given’s interests continue to make every effort to negotiate a fair settlement with the Suez Canal Authority,” according to the emailed statement. Following the arrest of the vessel, the owner lodged an appeal, which was rejected by the Ismailia court on May 4.
The Suez Canal Authority had been claiming almost $1bn in compensation as a result of the incident,
which included $300m as a “salvage bonus” and a further $300m for “loss of reputation”.
That was later revised to $600m, while the owner was seeking to cap limitable claims at $115m.
deposit could be enough to secure the vessel’s release, with the rest payable separately. +++***
Egyptian court rejects Ever Given owner’s appeal against detention AN Egyptian court has rejected an appeal by the
Japanese owner of containership Ever Given (IMO: 9811000) against the vessel’s detention in the Suez
Canal, where it blocked traffic for six days in March after becoming grounded.
A validation hearing took place at the Ismailia Economic Appeals Court on May 22.
In a reserved judgment issued on May 23, the court rejected the appeal by Shoei Kisen Kaisha for the
release of the vessel, which was arrested by the Suez Canal Authority until compensation is paid for the
incident that backed up hundreds of ships.
However, it accepted the owners’ objection that the appeals court “was not competent to hear the
validation proceedings”, according to a statement by the UK P&I club. That has now been referred to the
court of first instance for a hearing on May 29.
“Ever Given’s interests continue to make every effort to negotiate a fair settlement with the Suez Canal Authority,” according to the emailed statement. Following the arrest of the vessel, the owner lodged an appeal, which was rejected by the Ismailia court on May 4.
The Suez Canal Authority had been claiming almost $1bn in compensation as a result of the incident,
which included $300m as a “salvage bonus” and a further $300m for “loss of reputation”.
That was later revised to $600m, while the owner was seeking to cap limitable claims at $115m.
- *+++ The head of the SCA has hinted that $550m may be acceptable as a potential out-of-court settlement,
deposit could be enough to secure the vessel’s release, with the rest payable separately. +++***
The Mad Monk said:
Don't the Suez Canal Authority bear some responsibility for this incident?
The ship was under the guidance of their pilot when it went aground.
Ships Master is ultimately responsible. Pilots simply give "advice"The ship was under the guidance of their pilot when it went aground.
Meanwhile we still have no idea what actually happened.
The black box data would have been analyses by now but perhaps info cannot be disclosed to the public.
Therefore lessons cant be learnt!
zorba_the_greek said:
The Mad Monk said:
Don't the Suez Canal Authority bear some responsibility for this incident?
The ship was under the guidance of their pilot when it went aground.
Ships Master is ultimately responsible. Pilots simply give "advice"The ship was under the guidance of their pilot when it went aground.
Meanwhile we still have no idea what actually happened.
The black box data would have been analyses by now but perhaps info cannot be disclosed to the public.
Therefore lessons cant be learnt!
Is a ship's captain who crashes whilst obeying the pilot in the same amount of trouble as if he crashed ignoring the pilot?
This old chestnut again!
Courses to Masters orders and pilots advice is the usual log entry.
The only place in the world where this isn't true is the Panama canal where the master hands over the Conn to the pilot. This is logged and the pilot takes full responsibility for the navigation of the vessel.
Any Master who stands by and watches as the pilot increases speed in a canal with a ship obviously experiencing bank effect didn't go to the same marine academy as me! See the video of her track posted pages ago.
Courses to Masters orders and pilots advice is the usual log entry.
The only place in the world where this isn't true is the Panama canal where the master hands over the Conn to the pilot. This is logged and the pilot takes full responsibility for the navigation of the vessel.
Any Master who stands by and watches as the pilot increases speed in a canal with a ship obviously experiencing bank effect didn't go to the same marine academy as me! See the video of her track posted pages ago.
Mykap said:
This old chestnut again!
Courses to Masters orders and pilots advice is the usual log entry.
The only place in the world where this isn't true is the Panama canal where the master hands over the Conn to the pilot. This is logged and the pilot takes full responsibility for the navigation of the vessel.
Any Master who stands by and watches as the pilot increases speed in a canal with a ship obviously experiencing bank effect didn't go to the same marine academy as me! See the video of her track posted pages ago.
So if that is the case, the claim should be against the Pilot not the operator/owner?, or am I missing something?Courses to Masters orders and pilots advice is the usual log entry.
The only place in the world where this isn't true is the Panama canal where the master hands over the Conn to the pilot. This is logged and the pilot takes full responsibility for the navigation of the vessel.
Any Master who stands by and watches as the pilot increases speed in a canal with a ship obviously experiencing bank effect didn't go to the same marine academy as me! See the video of her track posted pages ago.
Hashtaggggg said:
So if that is the case, the claim should be against the Pilot not the operator/owner?, or am I missing something?
Am I missing a parrot?The Master is in command. The pilot advises. The safety of the those onboard, the vessel and the environment is he Masters responsibility.
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...
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff