even questioning the prudence of allowing such a size of vessel into the canal in view of restrictive bends. There are several questions raised by industry experts and lessons to be learnt from the six gruelling days ‘Ever Given’ remained aground. Many rational comments and questions have already been made such as; what exactly caused the ship to become grounded? How was it re-floated? Apportionment of blame for the crisis lies where? What will emerge as the proximate cause for insurance to consider?
These are some of the questions, which maritime experts representing respective stakeholders are still debating. Some of these will be litigated over to establish apportionment of blame or to agree upon compensation amounts. What steps will the Suez authorities take? What compensation or financial guarantee would they like the owner to provide before releasing the vessel and will the owner agree to such directives? Whatever it may be, the ship owner in particular and the maritime industry as such would like the “business as usual’’ attitude to prevail while the insurers, owners and lawyers come to settlement either through arbitration, or prolonged judiciary process.
So, before we react to the incident that may escalate to a point of no return, let’s put some thoughts together to understand how and why one should not fall back to causa- proxima attitude and blame the ship on the age-old principle that the ship was “under the Master’s order and Pilots’ advice”; and it was the wrong handling, manoeuvring by the Master that caused the grounding. A simple judgement based on an age-old trend. Blame the Master, criminalise and crucify him. This is not the first time, and I am sure will not be the last time, when the verdict is out against the ship’s staff before any investigation is done, whether by the state, or in accordance with the IMOs Casualty investigation Code to which well over 170 countries (including Egypt) have agreed. It is a different issue to agree and another to apply when it impacts your interests. I do not wish to dwell on the matter since it may go under sub-judice status if it has not already done so.
So, will they blame the captain or navigating officers on the bridge?
Noting the fact that the Master is an Indian citizen, and the trend was meandering towards the Master’s ineffective action, wrong ship handling, incompetency and so
on, I sought views on the subject immediately from Capt. L.K. Panda, who was the Chief Examiner and Nautical Adviser to the Government of India.
Being an ex-Government servant and very cautious by nature, he gave his generic thoughts and said “Every seafarer, including the Master, is trained and certified in accordance with the provisions under the STCW Convention 1978 as amended. The Convention in its preamble states ‘The Parties to this Convention, desiring to promote safety of life at sea and the protection of the marine environment by establishing in common agreement international standards of training, certification and watch keeping for seafarers making it amply clear that the standards set in the Convention are primarily related to sea, and the training does not envisage bringing in expertise for transit through canals, nor inland waters, therefore the coastal states, ports, canals have specialists, known to be Pilots and Harbour Masters to ensure safe transit of the vessel. The Pilots undergo special training for the purpose. To expect the seafarer to be trained and certified under the STCW Convention to match the competency of the Pilot is not
Photo Attribution: Kees Torn, CC BY-SA 2.0, via
Flickr.com File source:
https://bit.ly/3eg5kN8
100 | The Report • June 2021 • Issue 96
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136
