4 ms·

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 vesse

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.

skeeter2020 5y ago
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.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  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.
  - Talanes 5y ago
    >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.

skeeter2020 5y ago

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.

perl4ever 5y ago
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.
- Talanes 5y ago
  >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.