Ever Given: Egypt agrees deal to release ship that blocked Suez Canal(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Ever Given: Egypt agrees deal to release ship that blocked Suez Canal
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-57719551
96 comments
And the one about sailors stuck on a ship, sometimes for years: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/abandoned-ships/
Can the ship company sue the Suez Canal Authority for their pilots grounding the ship? It seems the Suez Canal Authority has washed their hands of any wrongdoing.
It's tough to imagine Evergreen winning an Egyptian civil court case against a local government agency. Regardless of what actually happened in the grounding incident, that's just not how things work in Egypt. And Evergreen has to maintain a working relationship with the Suez Canal Authority so that they can continue doing business.
Generally speaking the captain remains in control of the vessel and just receives local knowledge from the pilot.
Yes, by the agreement the shipping company has with the Suez Canal Authority, the shipping company is responsible one way or the other even if it's the pilot's fault. The buck stops at there. But the pilots are employees of the Suez Canal Authority contracted out to the ship to guide it through the canal. The shipping company is within its rights to sue the Suez Canal Authority for failing their contracted obligation. It's like when the general contractor is sued, the sub-contractor can be sued if they're the cause of the problem.
I remember hearing that the canals pilots are under the responsibility of the ships captain (how convenient) and so anything they do or don’t do is still the captains fault. And apparently Suez pilots are super lazy and don’t do much. « It’s a catch 22 son, the best there is »
What you heard or read could be a Malicious rumor or baseless statement
Now someone will quote your “I heard” and the rumor transitions to known fact
Now someone will quote your “I heard” and the rumor transitions to known fact
To give citations to GPs "I heard"
> Masters are held solely responsible for all damage or accidents of whatever kind resulting from the navigation or handling of their vessels directly or indirectly by day or night. [1]
And this journalist didn't seem to thing highly of the Suez Canal pilots:
> Technically the pilot took command of the bridge, though the pilot we had was too busy eating his way through the entire menu, and dozing, to be particularly commanding. The second officer had to keep waking him up for instructions [2]
Now obviously that's a single anecdote, but there's plenty more articles and blog posts of a similar vein.
[1] https://www.seawaysmarine.com/SECTION%20%20II%20%20-%20PILOT...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/25/suez-c...
> Masters are held solely responsible for all damage or accidents of whatever kind resulting from the navigation or handling of their vessels directly or indirectly by day or night. [1]
And this journalist didn't seem to thing highly of the Suez Canal pilots:
> Technically the pilot took command of the bridge, though the pilot we had was too busy eating his way through the entire menu, and dozing, to be particularly commanding. The second officer had to keep waking him up for instructions [2]
Now obviously that's a single anecdote, but there's plenty more articles and blog posts of a similar vein.
[1] https://www.seawaysmarine.com/SECTION%20%20II%20%20-%20PILOT...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/25/suez-c...
I’m aware, that’s why I said « I heard ». I feel that someone who quotes a rumor as a fact doesn’t really need to actually have seen it anywhere, they can just make it up all the same.
I'd assume the settlement prevents any further litigation. They are probably more concerned about getting the ship operating as soon as possible, as opposed to spending the next few years in court, all while the ship is impounded.
Egypt will release the container ship that blocked the Suez Canal in March,
What an attachment ambiguity --- before reading further, I thought they would let it leave only after another 8 months!
What an attachment ambiguity --- before reading further, I thought they would let it leave only after another 8 months!
Ships transiting the canal are required to have an Egyptian pilot on the bridge. Why isn't it more correct to say that that pilot blocked the canal using the ship?
It seems like Egypt is just taking advantage of the situation and their canal monopoly.
It seems like Egypt is just taking advantage of the situation and their canal monopoly.
Not sure if this is at all useful/interesting information, but I was a photographer on a cruise ship 5-6 weeks ago and happened to be in/on/at (?) the bridge as we were approaching to dock after a 10-night trip.
There were two pilots that had boarded the ship some way out and were with the captain and another crew member at all times. The senior pilot gave constant instructions/advice but at no point did they ever touch controls. The captain in this case was very deferential but I'm not sure if that would be common in the situation or because he was introverted or that he was less familiar with that port.
There were two pilots that had boarded the ship some way out and were with the captain and another crew member at all times. The senior pilot gave constant instructions/advice but at no point did they ever touch controls. The captain in this case was very deferential but I'm not sure if that would be common in the situation or because he was introverted or that he was less familiar with that port.
on
Because it’s like your tax return. Tax lawyers can do whatever they want so they will prepare your return and you’ll still take the fall for it all if they fucked it up.
It’s just a question of who is the whipper and who is the whippee.
It’s just a question of who is the whipper and who is the whippee.
Panama Canal is similar. The pilot is technically an advisor. Command rests with the Captain.
I'd thought the ship lost power - which wouldn't have been the pilot's fault - but it looks like that early claim got retracted.
Last I heard it was two pilots, one junior and a senior. The senior said to go faster because they were losing control, the junior disagreed because it would be way above max. speed (but a ship this big needs a lot more speed to deal with wind) so they argued and the captain didn't make a decision. Then it all went down slowly without being able to do anything about it.
"Enough speed"
Steerageway - enough speed for the rudder to work.
There's a reason you don't have two captains on a ship, even when there is an admiral on board. Having two pilots seems to be a bad pattern.
Steerageway - enough speed for the rudder to work.
There's a reason you don't have two captains on a ship, even when there is an admiral on board. Having two pilots seems to be a bad pattern.
There are two pilots because the transit takes 11-12 hours.
Ironic, considering the opposite is true for planes. Although I do believe only one is typically in control/“pilot” at any given time. Not to mention autopilot and flying vs shipping conditions
If you know anything about it:
- Do you think the shipping culture has lower standards about working together, as catastrophes are less traumatic and thus, there is much less public pressure into having clean responsibilities?
- Do you think the shipping industry would benefit from the pilots’ CRM, a mandatory training introduced in the 1970 to better manage moods and teamplay between pilots?
- Do you think the shipping culture has lower standards about working together, as catastrophes are less traumatic and thus, there is much less public pressure into having clean responsibilities?
- Do you think the shipping industry would benefit from the pilots’ CRM, a mandatory training introduced in the 1970 to better manage moods and teamplay between pilots?
Many shipping companies have adopted "bridge resource management" practices, adapted from the aviation industry. They do work when used but there are still many small companies with inadequate crew training and a lack of professionalism.
Airbus averaging the controls out between both pilots resulted in the Air France crash 10 or so years ago
> Ironic, considering the opposite is true for planes. Although I do believe only one is typically in control/“pilot” at any given time.
In US civilian flying, one is the pilot flying and the other is the pilot non-flying (usually operates radios, etc.) They usually alternate landings. Pilots study Cockpit Resource Management (CRM) to improve communications.
The Pilot in Command (PIC) is responsible for the flight (not ATC.)
Airplanes can be towed on the ground. Not sure how responsibility is assigned. It's pretty common for wingtips to collide during ground-handling, which grounds both planes.
In US civilian flying, one is the pilot flying and the other is the pilot non-flying (usually operates radios, etc.) They usually alternate landings. Pilots study Cockpit Resource Management (CRM) to improve communications.
The Pilot in Command (PIC) is responsible for the flight (not ATC.)
Airplanes can be towed on the ground. Not sure how responsibility is assigned. It's pretty common for wingtips to collide during ground-handling, which grounds both planes.
I did a search and it looks like airline ground collisions are usually resolved via the courts.
The towing company in one case with Virgin Airlines tried to muddy the waters with "no specific airplane model training" and "not enough lighting", which the judge laughed at since if an airplane towing company can't tow an airplane, what's the point of using them?
FYI: a wingtip strike can cost a few million dollars to fix, plus the cost of grounding (AOG) for weeks or months, which is more millions, for an airliner.
With small airplanes, most flight schools don't charge for AOG, but in the cases I've heard of, the loss of use was more than the repair bill and probably ended the student's career. The numbers were in the range of $5,000 in repairs and $10,000 - $20,000 for loss of use.
The towing company in one case with Virgin Airlines tried to muddy the waters with "no specific airplane model training" and "not enough lighting", which the judge laughed at since if an airplane towing company can't tow an airplane, what's the point of using them?
FYI: a wingtip strike can cost a few million dollars to fix, plus the cost of grounding (AOG) for weeks or months, which is more millions, for an airliner.
With small airplanes, most flight schools don't charge for AOG, but in the cases I've heard of, the loss of use was more than the repair bill and probably ended the student's career. The numbers were in the range of $5,000 in repairs and $10,000 - $20,000 for loss of use.
The captain is always in command and is responsible for the ship. The pilots assume command with the approval of the captain only. The captain can withdraw the approval at any time.
Holland America has an good FAQ on this topic: https://www.hollandamerica.com/blog/technical/what-does-the-...
Holland America has an good FAQ on this topic: https://www.hollandamerica.com/blog/technical/what-does-the-...
In the article the spokesperson for the insurer is quoted as saying:
"It is important to clarify that whilst the master is ultimately responsible for the vessel, navigation in the canal transit within a convoy is controlled by the Suez Canal pilots and SCA vessel traffic management services. Such controls include the speed of the transit and the availability of escort tugs."
In other words, they do not accept that the simple rule of the captain being responsible for the ship is all there is to it, case closed.
I'm not saying they are/were right or wrong, just that they are not a random pseudonymous person on the internet who's ignorant of the shipping industry and can be dismissed the same way.
"It is important to clarify that whilst the master is ultimately responsible for the vessel, navigation in the canal transit within a convoy is controlled by the Suez Canal pilots and SCA vessel traffic management services. Such controls include the speed of the transit and the availability of escort tugs."
In other words, they do not accept that the simple rule of the captain being responsible for the ship is all there is to it, case closed.
I'm not saying they are/were right or wrong, just that they are not a random pseudonymous person on the internet who's ignorant of the shipping industry and can be dismissed the same way.
Isn't that exactly what they are saying? It was in response to the SCA statement about how the ship was going too fast and inadequately controllable; they responded that while the responsibility ultimately lies with the captain, he was under the guidance of SCA staff and tugs for speed and piloting, not a drunk teenager whom they had no influence over, which is how the SCA has tried to frame this from the beginning.
Isn't what exactly what who is saying?
The insurer seemed to be acknowledging that the formal rule about the captain exists, while claiming that's not the end of the discussion about responsibility.
That suggests to me that quoting the rulebook isn't really an adequate response to the original question of why isn't it the pilot's fault. It's the position of the SCA, by definition.
I guess we will never know though, what was agreed on, because it was settled in private.
The insurer seemed to be acknowledging that the formal rule about the captain exists, while claiming that's not the end of the discussion about responsibility.
That suggests to me that quoting the rulebook isn't really an adequate response to the original question of why isn't it the pilot's fault. It's the position of the SCA, by definition.
I guess we will never know though, what was agreed on, because it was settled in private.
>The insurer seemed to be acknowledging that the formal rule about the captain exists, while claiming that's not the end of the discussion about responsibility.
I don't disagree with your broader point, but an insurance company acting like a claim is disputable doesn't really tell us anything. It's just the default sort of response for any insurance claim, just magnified to scale.
I'd expect them to be phrasing it as an open matter even if the captain had drunkenly taken control and stuck the ship himself.
I don't disagree with your broader point, but an insurance company acting like a claim is disputable doesn't really tell us anything. It's just the default sort of response for any insurance claim, just magnified to scale.
I'd expect them to be phrasing it as an open matter even if the captain had drunkenly taken control and stuck the ship himself.
While technically correct I would (reasonably) expect the captain to only exercise this in extreme circumstances. Asserting control in an ambiguous situation can be a difficult decision.
Also, if I were a captain, I would reasonably trust the judgment of a pilot whose job is to navigate ships through the canal unless in the case of, as you noted, "extreme circumstances"; and even withdrawing approval may be too late, given how slow ships of this size are to respond to sudden control inputs.
Read the article posted on HN about transiting the canal.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26588272
It may not be reasonable to trust the Suez pilots, but hopefully bigger ships get better pilots.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26588272
It may not be reasonable to trust the Suez pilots, but hopefully bigger ships get better pilots.
Whatever the ship does, it's ultimately the captain's responsibility.
> Why isn't it more correct to say that that pilot blocked the canal using the ship?
It doesn't matter. The Suez Canal Authority - Rules of Navigation Article 4, section 7:
“(7) Owners, mobilizers, charterers and/or operators bind themselves responsible for any mistakes resulting from pilot’s advice or arrise by SCA personnel.”
https://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/English/Navigation/Pages/Ruleso....
> It seems like Egypt is just taking advantage of the situation and their canal monopoly.
Yes.
It doesn't matter. The Suez Canal Authority - Rules of Navigation Article 4, section 7:
“(7) Owners, mobilizers, charterers and/or operators bind themselves responsible for any mistakes resulting from pilot’s advice or arrise by SCA personnel.”
https://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/English/Navigation/Pages/Ruleso....
> It seems like Egypt is just taking advantage of the situation and their canal monopoly.
Yes.
> their canal monopoly
An alternative is technically possible since Israel has contiguous territory between the Mediterranean and Red Sea: https://www.businessinsider.in/science/news/the-us-had-a-pla...
An alternative is technically possible since Israel has contiguous territory between the Mediterranean and Red Sea: https://www.businessinsider.in/science/news/the-us-had-a-pla...
A plan which involves 520 nukes of 2 megatons each, putting it roughly in the same ball park as some of the Project Orion proposals.
I mean, you might accidentally solve the Middle East peace process if nobody wants to live there any more, but I don’t think it will be a popular solution to either that or the Suez monopoly…
I mean, you might accidentally solve the Middle East peace process if nobody wants to live there any more, but I don’t think it will be a popular solution to either that or the Suez monopoly…
Man the 60s were really a time of laissez-faire nuclear projects huh. I mean I'll be the first to say the pendulum has swung too far the other way but boy were they ever enthusiastic.
It seems that every time someone invents a new hammer, people use it to solve every problem, whether it's the right tool for the job or not. When viewed through the lens of hindsight, the advertisements are quite amusing.
In the 1890's it was "electricity." In the 1920's it was "radio." In the 1940's it was "radar." In the 1950's it was "atomic" everything. In the 1960's it as "space" this and "space" that. In the 1970's it was "jet." In the 1990's it was "cyber." Today, it's "blockchain" and "AI."
Some of it works. Most of it is snake oil. But people keep buying based on trendy keywords. People are just built that way.
In the 1890's it was "electricity." In the 1920's it was "radio." In the 1940's it was "radar." In the 1950's it was "atomic" everything. In the 1960's it as "space" this and "space" that. In the 1970's it was "jet." In the 1990's it was "cyber." Today, it's "blockchain" and "AI."
Some of it works. Most of it is snake oil. But people keep buying based on trendy keywords. People are just built that way.
Comparing blockchain to electricity and nuclear science is just depressing for me :/
They both consumed the lives of many of the smartest folks of the time :)
Studying nuclear engineering should be worthwhile. Studying power system engineering was.
Blockchains aren't.
Blockchains aren't.
Haha, yes, I'm known around here for sharing that view.
Has blockchain solved a single problem yet?
Today it's "lidar"
None of them ever happened AFAIK, but there were some crazy ideas.
The Soviets did use a few nukes to stop oil well fires!
munk-a(1)
Because another complex geopolitical nightmare is exactly what that region needs..
Wow this website is fucked up. Half way through reading this adfest it jumps to some other article and messes around with the browser history, even reader display wont prevent it.
Now I’ll never know whether they executed that plan or not.
Now I’ll never know whether they executed that plan or not.
Sorry, my bad. I never browse without uBO and didn't notice.
[deleted]
The straight of Tiran, and Aqaba are still largely under Egyptian control.
The straight of Tiran are open to all ship traffic. Last time Egypt tried to impose a blockade on them, Israel considered it as an act of war which resulted in the six day war (where Egypt lost control of all the Sinai peninsula up to the Suez Canal.
Aqaba is a Jordanian port.
Aqaba is a Jordanian port.
For those curious, the list of books that cover the geopolitics of the Suez Canal (way before the current one) is extensive and include:
Blood and Sand: Suez, Hungary, and Eisenhower's Campaign for Peace
The Suez Crisis: The History of the Suez Canal’s Nationalization by Egypt and the War that Followed
1948: The First Arab-Israeli War
Blood and Sand: Suez, Hungary, and Eisenhower's Campaign for Peace
The Suez Crisis: The History of the Suez Canal’s Nationalization by Egypt and the War that Followed
1948: The First Arab-Israeli War
Read all three? Have a favourite?
I wonder if there's going to be a fire sale on the Lenovo laptops on this ship: By the time they make it to stores, they'll be replaced by the following generation of machines.
Imagine having your goods delayed for weeks as the ship got stuck... then delayed another few months because it got impounded for being stuck.
The corruption of the Egyptian authorities around the canal is astounding.
The corruption of the Egyptian authorities around the canal is astounding.
The article doesn't mention what happened to the crew of the ship. Are they still holding them captive [0] prior to this settlement agreement? Does this agreement liberate them?
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/19/ever-giv...
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/19/ever-giv...
"According to the International Transport Workers’ Federation, a coalition of unions, they are still receiving their pay and are amply provisioned. Nine have been allowed to return to India." - Bloomberg.
That's still sad though. It's like a prison.
Isn't that what being a sailor is like normally though? Surely they can't just get off in the middle of the ocean or at a port where they won't have a visa to stay in the country?
Being in port and being stuck aboard, particularly after a long series of passages, particularly when you expected to be home by now, particularly when you’ve nothing to do, is a very challenging set of circumstances.
I know (also, sadly, knew) several mariners who had a very bad time last year. One didn’t make it ashore, after eight months at anchor - eternally cheery pinoy engineer decided he had had enough and opened up the nitrogen tanks.
Another friend, in the cruise industry, fared better, but not much - she had overwintered in Antarctica several times previously, and said that spending six months being able to see the lights of port but being unable to go anywhere was infinitely harder. She’s been invited back to work, but isn’t sure she can bring herself to set foot on a ship again.
I know (also, sadly, knew) several mariners who had a very bad time last year. One didn’t make it ashore, after eight months at anchor - eternally cheery pinoy engineer decided he had had enough and opened up the nitrogen tanks.
Another friend, in the cruise industry, fared better, but not much - she had overwintered in Antarctica several times previously, and said that spending six months being able to see the lights of port but being unable to go anywhere was infinitely harder. She’s been invited back to work, but isn’t sure she can bring herself to set foot on a ship again.
Maybe that expectation should change, and so should the laws.
... Though there's quite a bit of _should_ on the docket already, and waiting to get to the docket, and in countries that aren't "here" but which constitutes often untold suffering and loss.
Maybe thinking bigger would work here. The UN should have a minimum charter of rights for all; and violating that should lead first to a diplomatic notice and deadline for resolution, and then automatic forced war by all member nations against the party in the wrong if those minimum rights are not correctly provided.
... Though there's quite a bit of _should_ on the docket already, and waiting to get to the docket, and in countries that aren't "here" but which constitutes often untold suffering and loss.
Maybe thinking bigger would work here. The UN should have a minimum charter of rights for all; and violating that should lead first to a diplomatic notice and deadline for resolution, and then automatic forced war by all member nations against the party in the wrong if those minimum rights are not correctly provided.
The role of the UN is to prevent wars, not start them.
Regardless, the UN already has a minimum charter of rights [1], and the ability to enforce it via the UN Security Council. This can and does (rarely) get used, and it often ends up making things worse. For example, the UN-authorised bombing of Libya in 2011.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...
Regardless, the UN already has a minimum charter of rights [1], and the ability to enforce it via the UN Security Council. This can and does (rarely) get used, and it often ends up making things worse. For example, the UN-authorised bombing of Libya in 2011.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...
Diplomacy is the preferred route for change. However just as a framework for civil society prefers to avoid violence, sometimes a measured response is required to enforce the desired outcome. This is why thought the UN has a basic foundation, it has not seen adoption. There are no teeth to make that law the rule.
99% invisible has a nice article / podcast on the subject, mainly focused on what happens if sailors get stuck onboard because of politics and their employers being shit: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/abandoned-ships/
No one likes being confined against their will.
They normally can't but sometimes it does just happen.
They can certainly fly them back home though.
Psychologically different though. There is a known end time and work to do when normally at sea.
Why does this boat have "Evergreen" written in big letters on its hull?
Evengreen, the company, prefixes the names of its ships with "Ever". Some other examples in the Evergreen G-class are Ever Golden and Ever Genius. More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_G-class_container_sh...
Had Ever Aim gotten stuck it would have been a lot funnier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_A-class_container_sh...
Had Ever Aim gotten stuck it would have been a lot funnier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_A-class_container_sh...
> Evengreen, the company
Just to avoid any possible confusion over that typo, you meant Evergreen, of course.
Just to avoid any possible confusion over that typo, you meant Evergreen, of course.
Thanks - yes, a typo.
That is the name of the company that owns the boat. Ever given (the name of the boat) is also written on the side of the boat.
Because shipping is complicated, that's actually the name of the company that operates the boat, not the name of the company that owns the boat, nor the name of the company that manages the crew and sailors.
That's the name of the shipping company.
It's about the "Great Bitter Lake Association" from the 99% invisible podcast [1], about several ships and crews who got stuck in the Suez in the 1960s.
[1]: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/great-bitter-lake-ass...