4 ms·

By default it will likely be the canal authority who was very motivated to recover the functionality of their waterway. They probably spent significant time an

By default it will likely be the canal authority who was very motivated to recover the functionality of their waterway. They probably spent significant time and money getting the ship unstuck. And they'll likely try to recover it from the shipping company who owned the Evergreen^H^H^H^H^HGiven. But if the canal authority's pilot was at the helm when it ran aground, there's likely to be some difficulty getting the shippers to pay without a court involved. EDIT: ship name was incorrect

artificial 6y ago
Evergreen is the shipping company, Ever Given is the ship. I’ve been enjoying all the memes about this situation and seeing all the ships queued up is wild.
ornornor 6y ago
Why wouldn’t it be the canals pilot? Doesn’t the canal make it mandatory that one of their pilot control the ship to navigate the canal? If so, and unless this is due to poor maintenance or another cause that’s the result of evergreens actions, I have a hard time imagining the canal authority not being on the hook for the problem they created.
- Gwypaas 6y ago
  The master is still responsible for the pilots actions. This can create contention sometimes.
- PhantomGremlin 6y ago
  Why wouldn’t it be the canals pilot? Because, if I understand correctly, he had an "impossible" job. The ship was heading north, with a 30 mph wind from the west. Rudder needed to be applied to counter the wind. The wind stopped, the ship got close to the left bank, then hydrodynamic forces caused it to pivot into the right bank. Basically, the ship was far too large for that narrow canal. Everything worked OK under good circumstances, but failed in gusty wind. This accident was inevitable. I also read somewhere that ship was going 13 knots in an area which is supposed to be 8 knots. But maybe that was also necessary because ships need to be moving in order for the rudder to work properly. No motion -> no rudder.
  - ornornor 6y ago
    > Basically, the ship was far too large for that narrow canal. Everything worked OK under good circumstances, but failed in gusty wind. This accident was inevitable. In any case, that sounds more like the canal authority's fault that Evergreen's. If the ship was too large and wasn't rated for using the canal then that would be different, but as it stands the canal said "ships up to that size can use the canal", and Evergreen built a ship up to that size and used the canal.
  - JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
    Are 30mph winds rare there? That seems quite mild. Why hasn’t this happened before?
    - simonh 6y ago
      We may never know, but it's possible the wind shifted unusually rapidly or chaotically, reversed, or with a ship like that the wind force at the bow and stern were unusually different or even opposite.
guiriduro 6y ago
I imagine the earlier incident with the same ship being underpowered to counteract wind will be sufficient for the canal-supplied pilot not to change overall culpability. But that will probably end in court, as insurers are loathe to pay what they should until they are obligated and their get-outs are legally squashed.

artificial 6y ago

Evergreen is the shipping company, Ever Given is the ship. I’ve been enjoying all the memes about this situation and seeing all the ships queued up is wild.

ornornor 6y ago

Why wouldn’t it be the canals pilot? Doesn’t the canal make it mandatory that one of their pilot control the ship to navigate the canal? If so, and unless this is due to poor maintenance or another cause that’s the result of evergreens actions, I have a hard time imagining the canal authority not being on the hook for the problem they created.

Gwypaas 6y ago
The master is still responsible for the pilots actions. This can create contention sometimes.
PhantomGremlin 6y ago
Why wouldn’t it be the canals pilot? Because, if I understand correctly, he had an "impossible" job. The ship was heading north, with a 30 mph wind from the west. Rudder needed to be applied to counter the wind. The wind stopped, the ship got close to the left bank, then hydrodynamic forces caused it to pivot into the right bank. Basically, the ship was far too large for that narrow canal. Everything worked OK under good circumstances, but failed in gusty wind. This accident was inevitable. I also read somewhere that ship was going 13 knots in an area which is supposed to be 8 knots. But maybe that was also necessary because ships need to be moving in order for the rudder to work properly. No motion -> no rudder.
- ornornor 6y ago
  > Basically, the ship was far too large for that narrow canal. Everything worked OK under good circumstances, but failed in gusty wind. This accident was inevitable. In any case, that sounds more like the canal authority's fault that Evergreen's. If the ship was too large and wasn't rated for using the canal then that would be different, but as it stands the canal said "ships up to that size can use the canal", and Evergreen built a ship up to that size and used the canal.
- JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
  Are 30mph winds rare there? That seems quite mild. Why hasn’t this happened before?
  - simonh 6y ago
    We may never know, but it's possible the wind shifted unusually rapidly or chaotically, reversed, or with a ship like that the wind force at the bow and stern were unusually different or even opposite.

guiriduro 6y ago

I imagine the earlier incident with the same ship being underpowered to counteract wind will be sufficient for the canal-supplied pilot not to change overall culpability. But that will probably end in court, as insurers are loathe to pay what they should until they are obligated and their get-outs are legally squashed.