Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Suez Canal says traffic in channel resumes after stranded ship refloated

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 593 posts

Re: Suez Canal says traffic in channel resumes after stranded ship refloated

#21

Post by gorkish »

navbaker wrote: post #11
rjzzleep wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They 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 r…

If it turns out to be human error related, how much liability falls on the actual ship's captain versus the required canal pilot?

Given 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."

Re: Suez Canal says traffic in channel resumes after stranded ship refloated

#22

Post by johannes1234321 »

belinder wrote: post #5

Was it reported how it got stuck in the first place?

The 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.

Re: Suez Canal says traffic in channel resumes after stranded ship refloated

#23

Post by throw0101a »

0xcafecafe wrote: post #2

I wonder why the previous link to track it is not working again. Would have been cool to see it navigating the canal: https://www.vesselfinder.com/?imo=9811000

> imo=9811000

I find it neat? strange? that IMO numbers have checksums:

> An IMO number is made of the three letters "IMO" followed by a seven-digit number. This consists of a six-digit sequential unique number followed by a check digit. The integrity of an IMO number can be verified using its check digit. This is done by multiplying each of the first six digits by a factor of 2 to 7 corresponding to their position from right to left. The rightmost digit of this sum is the check digit. For example, for IMO 9074729: (9×7) + (0×6) + (7×5) + (4×4) + (7×3) + (2×2) = 139.[10][11]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMO_number#Structure

MMSI numbers do not:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_Mobile_Service_Identi...

Re: Suez Canal says traffic in channel resumes after stranded ship refloated

#24

Post by scrollaway »

nindalf wrote: post #17

.

Whenever you see such absurdly high numbers attached to cost estimates, always try to understand how they calculate it.

This took the "$400 million / hour of shipped goods are being delayed" figure and ran with it by multiplying it, claiming that's the total damage cost.

Now ask yourself: Let's say you're sending a parcel via UPS that contains an iphone, or simply $1000 worth of goods. At the last stopping point of the UPS truck, they get a flat tire before being able to deliver it. Your iphone delivery is unexpectedly delayed for a day.

How much damage has been caused? What if it's two days? Six days?

There's just a big fat "this isn't how it works" attached to this $58bn figure.

Edit: For context since parent comment was deleted, this refers to istheshipstillstuck.com's estimate of $58bn worth of damages being caused by the ship being stuck.

Re: Suez Canal says traffic in channel resumes after stranded ship refloated

#25

Post by kuschku »

navbaker wrote: post #11
rjzzleep wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They 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 r…

If it turns out to be human error related, how much liability falls on the actual ship's captain versus the required canal pilot?

Technically 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.

Re: Suez Canal says traffic in channel resumes after stranded ship refloated

#27

Post by unixhero »

navbaker wrote: post #11
rjzzleep wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They 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 r…

If it turns out to be human error related, how much liability falls on the actual ship's captain versus the required canal pilot?

It 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.

Re: Suez Canal says traffic in channel resumes after stranded ship refloated

#29

Post by dubbel »

toxik wrote: post #19
navbaker wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it turns out to be human error related, how much liability falls on the actual ship's captain versus the required canal pilot?

Google “Costa Concordia” for a simulation of that scenario.

Not 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.

Post reply on HN