Suez canal blocked
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,787
You're sure you're not making it up? The only Finnish fanny I could find (yeah, yeah, I know, been there, done that.) was as a small government owned thing. That one?
https://www.balticshipping.com/vessel/imo/6803260
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cardiff, UK
Age: 59
Posts: 1,195
Originally Posted by megan
The Finnish tanker carrying the name has been decommissioned.
https://www.balticshipping.com/vessel/imo/6803260
https://www.balticshipping.com/vessel/imo/6803260
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Not where I want to be
Age: 67
Posts: 257
Originally Posted by Mariner9
For the avoidance of doubt, it wasn't my survey (or surveys actually as I attended that vessel several times) that led to its decommissioning
That explains it, 'cause when I Googled it one Fanny came up, a small government owned survey vessel.
Per
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Somewhere flat
Posts: 129
Egypt seizes Ever Given;
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uez-Canal.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uez-Canal.html
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,787
What responsibilities do the pilots carry if ultimately the Captain carries the can? After all, the pilot is there because he has intimate knowledge of local weather patterns, tides, underwater topography etc and necessity to have a pilot is a state ordered requirement.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: East Lothian
Age: 68
Posts: 18
megan
British Pilots, and, apart from Panama Canal, most of the rest of the world, the Pilot's liability is very much restricted by law. He(or she) is protected by the Pilotage Act and is during time on board a member of the ship's crew and as such
comes under the ship's insurance. Personal liability is limited to £1000, providing when things go wrong he (or she) was not wilfully or criminally negligent. In some cases the CHA (Competent Harbour Authority) indemnifies the pilot
for the £1000. Might seem strange that the Pilot cannot be held responsible for the final bill until you consider that the sums involved make it completely unrecoverable if the Pilot was to be sued for the costs.
The Pilot is merely an adviser and the Captain takes his advice accordingly. The Master is at liberty to ignore the Pilot's advice, but if he (or she) does he (or she) better get it right as they would bre putting themselves, and their owners in a
diffcult situation legally.
There will (or should) be an inquiry into the Pilot's actions, but that will probably be an internal matter, unless criminal actions (which are most unlikely) have taken place. Serious injury or death would also influence what sort of inquiry
takes place.
The short answer to your question is 'not a lot'.
The reason the Panama Canal is different is that when transitting the Panama the Panama Authorities take full responsibility for the thei actions and the Pilot is effectively in charge, rather than acting as an advisor. At least that was
the case when the Americans were running the Canal. Might have changed now that Panama runs the Canal.
British Pilots, and, apart from Panama Canal, most of the rest of the world, the Pilot's liability is very much restricted by law. He(or she) is protected by the Pilotage Act and is during time on board a member of the ship's crew and as such
comes under the ship's insurance. Personal liability is limited to £1000, providing when things go wrong he (or she) was not wilfully or criminally negligent. In some cases the CHA (Competent Harbour Authority) indemnifies the pilot
for the £1000. Might seem strange that the Pilot cannot be held responsible for the final bill until you consider that the sums involved make it completely unrecoverable if the Pilot was to be sued for the costs.
The Pilot is merely an adviser and the Captain takes his advice accordingly. The Master is at liberty to ignore the Pilot's advice, but if he (or she) does he (or she) better get it right as they would bre putting themselves, and their owners in a
diffcult situation legally.
There will (or should) be an inquiry into the Pilot's actions, but that will probably be an internal matter, unless criminal actions (which are most unlikely) have taken place. Serious injury or death would also influence what sort of inquiry
takes place.
The short answer to your question is 'not a lot'.
The reason the Panama Canal is different is that when transitting the Panama the Panama Authorities take full responsibility for the thei actions and the Pilot is effectively in charge, rather than acting as an advisor. At least that was
the case when the Americans were running the Canal. Might have changed now that Panama runs the Canal.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,238
Originally Posted by highflyer40
The nuclear bomb idea was a US study done in the 60’s. I’m pretty sure they had a study for nuking everything back then.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 60
Posts: 862
Interesting point now is that the shipping company is coming back to those with a box onboard, and demanding further payment to off set the bill from the Egyptians.. Looks like she will not be coming out of the canal anytime soon.
Cheers
Mr Mac
Cheers
Mr Mac
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by Mr Mac
Interesting point now is that the shipping company is coming back to those with a box onboard, and demanding further payment to off set the bill from the Egyptians.. Looks like she will not be coming out of the canal anytime soon.
Cheers
Mr Mac
Cheers
Mr Mac
general average
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 66
Posts: 69
"The law of general average is a principle of maritime law whereby all stakeholders in a sea venture proportionally share any losses resulting from a voluntary sacrifice of part of the ship or cargo to save the whole in an emergency. For instance, should the crew jettison some cargo overboard to lighten the ship in a storm, the loss would be shared pro rata by both the carrier and the cargo-owners.
Except in this case no cargo was lost.
This is more like an aircraft full of passengers taking a 17 hour delay and being charged extra for their inconvenience and use of the aircraft.
Except in this case no cargo was lost.
This is more like an aircraft full of passengers taking a 17 hour delay and being charged extra for their inconvenience and use of the aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,181
For instance, should the crew jettison some cargo overboard to lighten the ship in a storm, the loss would be shared pro rata by both the carrier and the cargo-owners.
Whilst the pilot may be an expert in navigating the canal, he may not have been fully aware of the handling characteristics of a ship this size, that would be up to the Captain. The following video gives a likely explanation of what happened. Skip forward 3 minutes if you don't want to watch the whole thing.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,787
Many thanks for the explanation LLP.
Looking at the literature it would seem it might come under the act of God definition, given the seeming inability to predict a ships dynamics.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ined_Waterways
Looking at the literature it would seem it might come under the act of God definition, given the seeming inability to predict a ships dynamics.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ined_Waterways
Last edited by megan; 15th Apr 2021 at 12:38. Reason: link
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 1,481
Watching that last video posted, inevitably someone will develop a video game where you sail a huge container ship through the Suez canal. Bonus point for not getting stuck, redeemed when you do and you need to bribe officials to release your ship.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 3,196
Just out of curiosity - what sort of value are we talking about for the fully loaded Ever Given? As it what percentage of the value of the ship and cargo is the near billion dollar ransom the Egyptians are demanding?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 785
State-sponsored piracy rules: "If you don't pay the full sum immediately, we keep the ship."
It might be cheaper to say, "You can keep the ship and the cargo. Enjoy!"
Or, "Responsibility lies equally split between the canal dredgers (lack of wind fencing, uneven bottom), the pilots, the captain, the shipping line and the owners. We will pay the full sum to release the ship, as you so generously propose, but if you do not subsequently return the increments for which you were responsible, we reserve the right to block the canal again."
It might be cheaper to say, "You can keep the ship and the cargo. Enjoy!"
Or, "Responsibility lies equally split between the canal dredgers (lack of wind fencing, uneven bottom), the pilots, the captain, the shipping line and the owners. We will pay the full sum to release the ship, as you so generously propose, but if you do not subsequently return the increments for which you were responsible, we reserve the right to block the canal again."
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by RatherBeFlying
Negotiations are in progress to use Iran's bombs and missiles to dig the canal. Swords to ploughshares
Last edited by alicopter; 16th Apr 2021 at 02:21.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,181
With the amount of money involved, the lawyers must be rubbing their hands. Which ever side they represent, win or lose, they still get paid. First in the queue for a going over will be the ships owners as they have the deepest pockets but the insurers covering the pilot's employer will be having meetings to see how much they are on the hook for.
Not worth going after the Captain and pilot personally, as even if they are liable it would take thousands of years of earnings to pay even a fraction of the damages.
Not worth going after the Captain and pilot personally, as even if they are liable it would take thousands of years of earnings to pay even a fraction of the damages.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 60
Posts: 862
I know of one company with around 12 40ft box,s onboard. They are having the product on board remade (furniture) and then will ship again. Their insurance says that will be quickest solution for their customers as the ship is not be going anywhere quickly according to them.
Cheers
Mr Mac
Cheers
Mr Mac
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Yakima
Posts: 117
Under 'general averaging' how much would the shipper of a single 40' container be liable for? I knew about general averaging when I shipped household goods down and back to New Zealand but didn't purchase insurance as I thought the risk was slight. IIRC it cost me about $1500 for a 20' container Seattle to Napier; I understand shipping costs have really risen lately.
