3 hours ago, tomazbodner said:

Curious about it... when you mentioned that it made me pull out Google Earth and check it. Was never interested in it before, to be honest.

 

Yeah, it was an erroneous media report (BBC News for flips sake), made me go a hunting for the old channel too.

6 hours ago, Crossy said:

 

Yeah, it was an erroneous media report (BBC News for flips sake), made me go a hunting for the old channel too.

It made me learn something new ???? That Suez canal actually has 2 lanes for part of the way, and a lake in the middle. Had you not written that, I would probably not have looked it up, so I'm grateful you posted that.

Strange that nobody here knows what the problem is. Its all over in the Dutch news probably because Boskalis is helping. 

 

According to them the ship has grounded on more then a meter of sand. So the tug boats cant pull it off. They will probably remove the soil from under water and then pull the ship back into place. They did that with an other container ship that was grounded like this in Germany.

 

Problem is just that it got grounded really well and from that position force is not an option. According to Boskalis this can easily take two weeks. They need to bring their ships to the place too. Boskalis is one of the few companies that has the know how to do this. They also do a lot of dredging to they are perfectly suited for this operation.

 

I certainly dont want to be the insurer of this ship as the claims will be huge. 

7 hours ago, Crossy said:

 

Yeah, it was an erroneous media report (BBC News for flips sake), made me go a hunting for the old channel too.

Listening to LBC UK I got pulled in to ???? and didn't realize how big the ship is just to find out its nearly as big as other ships. ????

So Google Earth is a bit like Google Maps on which the roads turn red when there is a hold-up?

11 hours ago, tomazbodner said:

Tried to find that old canal but cannot.

 

 

Snap from Google Earth (exactly where the colour of water changes

 

 

And zoomed out

 

 

 

I see the part between Great Bitter Lake and Port Said has 2 "lanes" for part of the way, but I don't see another between Suez and the lake.

 

Curious about it... when you mentioned that it made me pull out Google Earth and check it. Was never interested in it before, to be honest.

 

As I said before - no second channel in the southern section.

A bit like Google Maps but not linked to news of the day. 

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Strange that nobody here knows what the problem is. Its all over in the Dutch news probably because Boskalis is helping. 

 

According to them the ship has grounded on more then a meter of sand. So the tug boats cant pull it off. They will probably remove the soil from under water and then pull the ship back into place. They did that with an other container ship that was grounded like this in Germany.

 

Problem is just that it got grounded really well and from that position force is not an option. According to Boskalis this can easily take two weeks. They need to bring their ships to the place too. Boskalis is one of the few companies that has the know how to do this. They also do a lot of dredging to they are perfectly suited for this operation.

 

I certainly dont want to be the insurer of this ship as the claims will be huge. 

I understand your thoughts Rob, but consider this, just my experience here and by no means am I professing this is the full insurance situation. Firstly a lot of shippers of cargo ( ie. the individuals shipping their stock in the containers) don’t insure. It costs a fortune and usually delays are not included in the risks. This is especially so for non perishables. The chance of a total loss is .0006% so If I use a ‘reputable’ shipper why would I want to pay 2-3% premiums.

 

Now the actual ship in question will have insurance, however at the moment there is no loss, only costs of re-floating the beast.

 

So the question is, will insurance cover that? And the answer is possibly no. No in the instance that it was negligence and no that it was a situation (inclement weather) outside the control of the operators.

 

Next we have claims from the other shippers who are now ‘stuck in a queue’. They can’t make a claim directly to the insurers of the Ever Given; they will have to make legal claim against the owners. What jurisdiction that would be made in and the outcome is anyone’s guess.

 

 

I have stock that will be delayed from Europe and as long as it arrives someday I can’t see that I will actually lose a great deal and certainly not enough to warrant legal action that will invariably take years and great deal of money without a guaranteed result.

 

If the ship owners decide they are in this situation due to some error on SCA’s part then a counter claim could be made on the basis the latter didn’t dredge the canal sufficiently to avoid this event.

 

????

 

I actually think the Lawyers will be the only one’s making from this. A new source of income….’Container ship chasers’.

Apparently the ship's Captain failed to see the "NO U-TURN" sign.

8 minutes ago, champers said:

 

"During the war..."

Who benefits from this?

 

58 minutes ago, DaLa said:

I understand your thoughts Rob, but consider this, just my experience here and by no means am I professing this is the full insurance situation. Firstly a lot of shippers of cargo ( ie. the individuals shipping their stock in the containers) don’t insure. It costs a fortune and usually delays are not included in the risks. This is especially so for non perishables. The chance of a total loss is .0006% so If I use a ‘reputable’ shipper why would I want to pay 2-3% premiums.

 

Now the actual ship in question will have insurance, however at the moment there is no loss, only costs of re-floating the beast.

 

So the question is, will insurance cover that? And the answer is possibly no. No in the instance that it was negligence and no that it was a situation (inclement weather) outside the control of the operators.

 

Next we have claims from the other shippers who are now ‘stuck in a queue’. They can’t make a claim directly to the insurers of the Ever Given; they will have to make legal claim against the owners. What jurisdiction that would be made in and the outcome is anyone’s guess.

 

 

I have stock that will be delayed from Europe and as long as it arrives someday I can’t see that I will actually lose a great deal and certainly not enough to warrant legal action that will invariably take years and great deal of money without a guaranteed result.

 

If the ship owners decide they are in this situation due to some error on SCA’s part then a counter claim could be made on the basis the latter didn’t dredge the canal sufficiently to avoid this event.

 

????

 

I actually think the Lawyers will be the only one’s making from this. A new source of income….’Container ship chasers’.

Completely correct, but don't forget that the insurers of the hull will take a big hit. They will have to pay for the damage to the hull and for the costs of refloating, and the latter will be high. These risks are always co- and re-insured BTW.

On 3/25/2021 at 4:14 PM, EVENKEEL said:

It's still the Captain's fault no matter what.

 

fault, no. responsibility, yes.

one thing I wondered while reading up on the details of this accident, is whether there is a ship guidance system for the Suez Canal and other canals?

 

for example, a computer could continuously check the ship's course and position and trigger immediate alarm when there is the slightest deviation, so the crew can activate thrusters without delay.

 

another question is how much of a safety margin is there for maneuvering a ship of that size when fully laden with containers that act as a wind sail and when a storm comes up?

I read about "winds as strong as 31 Mph" - wow. in the part of the world where I grew up, this would qualify as "relatively calm weather".

What is such a ship supposed to do when hit with sustained 70 Mph winds when crossing the canal? Are thrusters enough to compensate?

 

and before posters here shoot more on the captain: there were not one but two Suez Canal Authority pilots onboard when this happened.

6 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

fault, no. responsibility, yes.

Firstly they will try to blame the helmsman, the unlicensed people in the engine room operating or in charge of the bow thruster. Next come the licensed officers, the chief Engineer, the Chief Mate who I'm sure was part of the bridge team as well as the Captain. In the end the Captain will shoulder the responsibility. Oh the pilot will be drug through the mudd but in the end the pilot is only assisting.

2 minutes ago, tgw said:

one thing I wondered while reading up on the details of this accident, is whether there is a ship guidance system for the Suez Canal and other canals?

 

for example, a computer could continuously check the ship's course and position and trigger immediate alarm when there is the slightest deviation, so the crew can activate thrusters without delay.

 

another question is how much of a safety margin is there for maneuvering a ship of that size when fully laden with containers that act as a wind sail and when a storm comes up?

I read about "winds as strong as 31 Mph" - wow. in the part of the world where I grew up, this would qualify as "relatively calm weather".

What is such a ship supposed to do when hit with sustained 70 Mph winds when crossing the canal? Are thrusters enough to compensate?

 

If sudden 70 knot winds hit the bow thrusters wouldn't have helped. By looking at the ECDIS the bridge team knows at all times how far of the charted course they are off to the meter.  As part of the investigation they will have a detailed print out of the ship's movement second by second from the ECDIS. The other tool in determining where the fault lies is the Voyage Data Recorder which will play back all verbal communications leading up to the grounding.

4 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

If sudden 70 knot winds hit the bow thrusters wouldn't have helped. By looking at the ECDIS the bridge team knows at all times how far of the charted course they are off to the meter.  As part of the investigation they will have a detailed print out of the ship's movement second by second from the ECDIS. The other tool in determining where the fault lies is the Voyage Data Recorder which will play back all verbal communications leading up to the grounding.

 

yeah, I'm wondering more about ships' capabilities of avoiding such incidents in the first place.

 

so, if thrusters aren't enough to compensate, I guess weather forecasts need to be good for allowing ships to cross the canal.

 

and then there are "sudden sandstorms" - is that an unavoidable risk that has just to be accepted?

2 hours ago, tgw said:

one thing I wondered while reading up on the details of this accident, is whether there is a ship guidance system for the Suez Canal and other canals?

 

for example, a computer could continuously check the ship's course and position and trigger immediate alarm when there is the slightest deviation, so the crew can activate thrusters without delay.

 

another question is how much of a safety margin is there for maneuvering a ship of that size when fully laden with containers that act as a wind sail and when a storm comes up?

I read about "winds as strong as 31 Mph" - wow. in the part of the world where I grew up, this would qualify as "relatively calm weather".

What is such a ship supposed to do when hit with sustained 70 Mph winds when crossing the canal? Are thrusters enough to compensate?

 

and before posters here shoot more on the captain: there were not one but two Suez Canal Authority pilots onboard when this happened.

 

The Suez Canal main channels are physically marked as are other channels (into ports etc.) with buoys and posts with lights. There is a SC VTMS and a whole host of navigation rules. Computerized integrated navigation aids do continuously check the ship's course and position and alarms may have sounded, certainly if there was any electrical or mechanical failure. 

 

Slightest deviation? Probably not. But the thrusters should be quickly available while in the canal. Two escort tugs are mandatory with a ship this big in the SC but as we can see, the margin for error is thin. The tugs were probably not much use in the wind (or crews half asleep).

 

At this time of year strong winds are quite common - especially near sunrise - I have experienced them stronger than that, up to about 35 knots (40MPH) at the top of the Gulf of Suez. They might well be be stronger than that in the SC sometimes. Yes, sand dust/haze does occur with winds here, especially off the adjacent Eastern Desert and the Sinai.

 

What is such a ship supposed to do when hit with sustained 70 Mph winds when crossing the canal? Not much it can do except try and stay in the deep water. If 70 knot winds were forecast then I would hope that they would probably stop using the canal, temporarily.

 

I just found an article which seems to  back up the windy/sandy theory:

 

https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/1/100104/In-pics-Egypt-witness-sand-storm-drop-in-temperature#:~:text=CAIRO – 24 March 2021%3A A,rain and decline in temperature.&text=A dust storm covered the,a severe drop in temperature.

 

Two pilots probably were on board but they are normally in charge of collecting as many cigarettes as possible. Whatever happened was probably beyond the immediate control of both captain, engineer and pilots. However, it has been suggested that the vessel speed was increased a bit to reduce the slewing effect of the wind and this may have helped push the deeper part of the bulbous bow far under the canal bank.

 

A post with no source has been removed.  

 

The course of the 400m-long (1,300ft) Ever Given has been corrected by 80%, according to the Suez Canal Authority.
Continued: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-56559904 (29/03/21)