Russian 'dark fleet' an ecological disaster threat, claim Baltic shipowners
Operating from a country with views of the port of St Petersburg, the Finnish Shipowners’ ...
DSV: STAR OF THE WEEKDSV: FLAWLESS EXECUTIONKNIN: ANOTHER LOWWTC: TAKING PROFITMAERSK: HAMMEREDZIM: PAINFUL END OF STRIKE STLA: PAYOUT RISKAMZN: GOING NOWHEREAMZN: SEASONAL PEAK PREPARATIONSJBHT: LVL PARTNERSHIPHD: MACRO READING AND DISCONNECTSTLA: 'FALLING LEAVES'STLA: THE STEEP DROP
DSV: STAR OF THE WEEKDSV: FLAWLESS EXECUTIONKNIN: ANOTHER LOWWTC: TAKING PROFITMAERSK: HAMMEREDZIM: PAINFUL END OF STRIKE STLA: PAYOUT RISKAMZN: GOING NOWHEREAMZN: SEASONAL PEAK PREPARATIONSJBHT: LVL PARTNERSHIPHD: MACRO READING AND DISCONNECTSTLA: 'FALLING LEAVES'STLA: THE STEEP DROP
The headline refers to the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) collision regulations (Colregs) for vessels at sea, which were last updated in 1972 – more than 40 years ago. A lot has changed in the interim, particularly navigational technology on-board ships. So why does shipping still use a system that was essentially developed when the only way of propelling a vessel was by sail, and continues to cause huge confusion – and in some cases tragic incidents – for ships that are engine-powered? “The IMO to be shamed into showing some responsibility”.
Atlantic and Gulf coast US ports close as ILA rejects last-minute offer
Box lines declare force majeure as White House defends ILA
Talks rumoured to be underway after USMX urged ILA back to the table
ILA blames 'profiteering' foreign-shipping lines for US port strike
Strike disruption begins: 'a frenzy' to come with extra demand for airfreight
Shippers scrambling for alternatives as box lines divert from closed ports
Airlines scramble to avoid Middle East airspace as missiles fly
Port strike will see 60 more ships at anchor this week and rates rising
Comment on this article
Euan
October 11, 2013 at 12:38 pmTotally disagree with the opinion in this article.
Perhaps not written by someone with sea experience?
I am a 32 year old Master mariner, so familiar with all the new technology, which makes no difference to how the rules should be applied. The rules are simple, and if you remove an obligation to stand on in certain circumstances then you effectively introduce a game of ‘chicken’ between the two. Modern commercial pressure, with time and fuel saving contributes more and more to decisions made by officers, particularly sticking to ‘my red line’. The rules can’t be blamed for running on to a shoal – stand on or not, if you know it’s there why turn to it to avoid another vessel, stop?
It is also worth noting that many collisions, including the example in the article, are between vessels without this new technology.
Cars and aircraft have developed significantly over the last 40 years too, but we don’t change the rules. Imagine saying because cars have better brakes, no one has to give way at a stop sign?