4 ms·
Was it reported how it got stuck in the first place?
by belinder 6y ago
Was it reported how it got stuck in the first place?
- sjm 6y agoThe ship's operators blamed a sandstorm and high winds.
- richrichardsson 6y agoHigh winds + sandstorm reduced visibility.
- Pyrodogg 6y agoThis is a pretty good synopsis of the situation as of Sunday https://youtu.be/5iyn2q6s1Sk https://youtu.be/5iyn2q6s1Sk
- rjzzleep 6y agoThey blamed a sandstorm, but the Taiwanese operator blamed the Japanese owner for it. And the Japanese operator agrees. Basically, we're not getting the real answer to this question. Also, the following: > However, the chairman of Egypt's Suez Canal Authority said Saturday, without giving details, that weather conditions "were not the main reasons" for the grounding, and that "there may have been technical or human reasons," the BBC reported. An investigation is ongoing.
- navbaker 6y agoIf it turns out to be human error related, how much liability falls on the actual ship's captain versus the required canal pilot?
- toxik 6y agoGoogle “Costa Concordia” for a simulation of that scenario.
- dubbel 6y agoNot at all comparable, because in this case as far as I know two pilots were on board. Pilots are required for the passage through the Suez Canal. Usually the pilots are giving steering commands to the helmsman, but the Captain still has the final responsibility for the ship.
- jowsie 6y agoIf you're up for a bit of a humorous take on the matter, this video is great; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh9KBwqGxTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh9KBwqGxTI
- gorkish 6y agoGiven that any human being crewing this ship or working in the Suez very likely lacks 59 billion dollars, the answer to this question is very probably "It doesn't matter."
- kuschku 6y agoTechnically the pilot is in control of the ship and bears all liability at that time (or rather, the canal authority). But it's an open secret the canal pilots are just slacking off, so a court may as well rule with the de facto situation and hold the captain and the operator responsible.
- unixhero 6y agoIt does not work like that on the seas. Maritime legal conventions are are ratified by 99% countries on the globe. A shipowner is alwayd insured against these things, and the i surance company is also insured (reinsurance). So nobody will end up in a lifetime of serfdom because of this. Shit hits the fan on the high seas all the time. We nornally don't hear about it in regular media.
- tc313 6y agoIt matters whose insurance company pays, though.
- artursapek 6y agoTIL about insurance insurance
- polote 6y agoThere is no way the only reason was because of the wind. I mean if because of strong wind boats become uncontrollable we would have this kind of event pretty frequently. So it is clearly something else, (which may have been emphasized by a strong wind, or have been triggered by a strong wind)
- johannes1234321 6y agoThe short version I got is that a sand storm threw them slightly of course, while reacting they oversteered a bit, becoming too fast, which then lead to different fluid dynamic processes, once they were out of the deep water they couldn't do anything anymore. But detailed analysis yet has to be done.
- Symmetry 6y agoHigh winds and the hydrodynamics of large boats in small channels. https://www.ft.com/content/171c92ec-0a44-4dc5-acab-81ee2620d3c1 https://www.ft.com/content/171c92ec-0a44-4dc5-acab-81ee2620d...