Russian captain blames “Unsafe UK shipping conditions”

Hacker said:
They are usually waiting to refuel. Any ship proceeding up the channel has to have low sulphur fuel (which is more expensive). Falmouth is the main place for that type of fuel.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, most shipping is on charter. There are dozens of anchorages around the world where ships wait for their agents to get cargo. Then, as you say, they will need bunkers for the passage. Remember Gib East side for orders, then the Bay for bunkers?

Mebbe Minn, if he reads this can provide clarity?

A small story however concerns one of the bunker tankers that operate in the Bay. A few festive seasons ago, one at anchor outside the Spanish breakwater dragged onto the beach at La Linea on 22nd December. The Russian crew were found to be in 'good spirits'......
 
Last edited:
Unless designs have changed since I was a ships engineer, the engines don't run when at anchor as they are direct drive to the prop. We always had a state of readiness when at anchor ranging from about 60 minutes to immediate
 
It would appear that the Kazma Minn has been detained until repairs have been made. MCA surveyors have confirmed breach in one fuel tank but no pollution reported.
 
This is the sort of ship I remind myself about whenever I set out to sea. I certainly don’t expect them to see me or take avoiding action.
 
Giblets said:
And the point of your post is????
Click to expand...

Try again. I was trying to make the point that it is inadvisable to anchor on a lee shore, and I had a beautiful screen shot of a 50 knot blast directly from the south into Falmouth at the time of the grounding. Could not post it, did not offer me the choice, Scuttlebutt in an unfriendly mood.
 
"Unsafe shiping conditions" ???

Ships put to sea. AFAIA, the only time the sea is safe is when you are well inland where even a tsunami can’t reach you. Until then the sea is dangerous.
 
Tomahawk said:
"Unsafe shiping conditions" ???

Ships put to sea. AFAIA, the only time the sea is safe is when you are well inland where even a tsunami can’t reach you. Until then the sea is dangerous.
Click to expand...

....but nowhere near as dangerous as roads.
 
dom said:
My first thought was that the ship may not be insured, for an insurance company would surely have exercised its subrogation rights to prevent such an unhelpful media show.

As to your point: 100% agree, putting lives and equipment at risk to support the refloating of a ship, an almost entirely commercial operation, in the absence of co-ordination with the owners and/or insurers, does on the face of it seem wrong.

Also the Russian Embassy investigating, if true, seems most odd. In fact, the whole story is kind of odd.
Click to expand...

There were crew onboard, so classifies as humanitarian rescue surely.
Doubt the RNLI guys turning out were concerned about the technicalities.
 
Bearing in mind that the ship had recently spent 7 months under detention in the Netherlands for over 100 defects I think the captain has a nerve blaming "unsafe UK shipping conditions". Pot, kettle & black spring to mind!
 
scotty123 said:
There were crew onboard, so classifies as humanitarian rescue surely.
Doubt the RNLI guys turning out were concerned about the technicalities.
Click to expand...
The operation falls into two parts. The RNLI were tasked to the scene to be prepared to evacuate the crew if it became necessary: as I said earlier, they do not charge for their services.
The second element is the salvage of the vessel, which is a commercial operation, usually under Lloyd’s rules. If the master/owners would not agree to the salvage terms on offer, I believe that the MCA can insist on a salvage operation, leaving the lawyers to sort out who pays whom to a later date.
The ship would not have been released from arrest in the Netherlands without adequate insurance in place, so she will have carried the usual cover for salvage arrangements as well as pollution cleanup cover. No hints in any coverage down here that there was any sort of problem with insurance.
 
dom said:
Okay, running aground is bad nav, or bad luck.

Can anyone throw any light on the accusation here that the UK Coastguard failed to warn against a supposed chain, which supposedly caused this ship to ground?

No light. Just a wild guess which could be entirely wrong.

First a certain amount of information may have been lost or added due to language differences. This was then translated by a journalist who knows little or nothing about the topic. So what was the Russian Captain actually talking about?

Think about what would you do if you were.
At anchor and the wind picked up?
You Started dragging your anchor?

One might expect Russian cargo ships to do much the same.

What did he mean by the Chain?
Could be his own anchor chain?

Or could it be they tried to raise thier anchor and found it had fouled an old chain?
Which would of course complicate the issue. just a wild guess. Based on not being able to think of any other reason for another unknown chain to have been involved
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top