Jump to content
Kelownabccan

Veendam runs into a crane...blog from ship

Recommended Posts

From a person on the Veendam right now.....Dec 20th cruise.....I hope we do not have any trouble on the next one.....

 

 

 

 

The sail away was scheduled for 9:00 pm and we were right on time. However, sailing out of the harbor, we had a little mishap. Seems that one of the container ships had a container derrick swung out over the channel and in squeezing between two container ships, the derrick managed to tear off about a 50 foot section of railing on our Deck 12—and crack a window in the Crows Nest…narrowly avoiding more serious damage. However because of the accident, once out of the immediate harbor area, we had to pull over into an anchorage area a few miles downstream and wait until the next morning for the Argentine Coast Guard to come aboard and inspect the damage as required by International Maritime Law (according to announcements on board). That required us to stay overnight unexpectedly and the inspection took much longer than anticipated..so we did not get underway again until about 11:00 am. All of that delay meant a major shakeup in our original schedule. The captain announced mid-afternoon that we were going into Montivedeo, Uruguay that evening, would stay overnight to do some preliminary repairs, refuel, and restock for the remainder of the trip. That necessitated adjusting our onward itinerary. The cruise line made a decision to SKIP the stop at Puerto Madryn, Argentina…and instead sail directly for Port Stanley, Falkland Islands. That would get us back on our original schedule—in the Falklands on Christmas Day. What impact it will have on our anticipated viewings remains to be seen. We had a tour scheduled at

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why all itineraries are subject to change.

 

Hope the rest of your cruise is a better experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really sorry to read this but good no one was hurt.

I tend to think no one is more unhappy about this than the Captain.

Hope the rest of your voyage goes smoothly.

Thank you for sharing with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucky no one was hurt . Bet the captain would like a do over on that one .

 

It was likely under the control of the pilot, but the captain is always ultimately responsiible, even with the pilot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was likely under the control of the pilot, but the captain is always ultimately responsiible, even with the pilot.

 

 

 

There is only one place in the world where the Pilot is in control of the ship rather than the Captain - and that's the Panama Canal.

 

Otherwise, the Pilot is merely an advisor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We met a great couple on our Galapagos cruise, that was doing this cruise immediately after the Galapagos Islands. They were so excited about it. So sorry to hear about this. Anything can happen at sea. Hopefully all goes smoothly for the rest of the cruise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From a person on the Veendam right now.....Dec 20th cruise.....I hope we do not have any trouble on the next one.....

 

 

 

 

The sail away was scheduled for 9:00 pm and we were right on time. However, sailing out of the harbor, we had a little mishap. Seems that one of the container ships had a container derrick swung out over the channel and in squeezing between two container ships, the derrick managed to tear off about a 50 foot section of railing on our Deck 12—and crack a window in the Crows Nest…narrowly avoiding more serious damage. However because of the accident, once out of the immediate harbor area, we had to pull over into an anchorage area a few miles downstream and wait until the next morning for the Argentine Coast Guard to come aboard and inspect the damage as required by International Maritime Law (according to announcements on board). That required us to stay overnight unexpectedly and the inspection took much longer than anticipated..so we did not get underway again until about 11:00 am. All of that delay meant a major shakeup in our original schedule. The captain announced mid-afternoon that we were going into Montivedeo, Uruguay that evening, would stay overnight to do some preliminary repairs, refuel, and restock for the remainder of the trip. That necessitated adjusting our onward itinerary. The cruise line made a decision to SKIP the stop at Puerto Madryn, Argentina…and instead sail directly for Port Stanley, Falkland Islands. That would get us back on our original schedule—in the Falklands on Christmas Day. What impact it will have on our anticipated viewings remains to be seen. We had a tour scheduled at

 

I just returned from this cruise after staying over in Chile.

 

I am a maritime lawyer, with an llm in admiralty and maritime law (1992).

 

I was on the bow, on deck, above the "Crow's Nest" lounge, an ideal point of view. The Veendam was "bow in", and backing down with tug assistance, with the M/V Argentina, a container ship, moored on Veendam's starboard side, and another container ship moored further back on Veendam's port side.

 

The M/V Argentina was moored "stern in," and at the time of the allision, a shoreside crane was loading containers into its midship hatches. The Argentina has its own bow and stern cranes, both of which had been stationary for some time before the Veenam began its voyage. The Argentina's stern crane was more or less "in place" or over the dock, and its bow crane was only slightly over its starboard side.

 

It appeared that the Veendam's master or the compulsory pilot intended to remain in the center of the "channel" or anchorage area while backing down, to remain clear of the vessels on either side.

 

I did not see a ship's deck or other officer on my deck or the deck below (where the allision occurred), or anyone else keeping a lookout, with a radio. Shortly after the allision began, and it continued for some time as the vessel was making 1 knot or less, a deck officer came to the deck where it occurred and shouted at people to leave the deck, though the impact was largely over at this time.

 

I saw the Veendam's bow drifting toward the stern of the Argentina, and feared this collision would occur, first, though I saw the crane arm, too. When the Veendam got within 40 feet or so of the Argentina, this "drift" appeared to stop, but by that time the Veendam's 12th deck (level) was level with part of the STATIONARY crane, and the impact occurred in excrutiatingly slow motion.

 

I saw a group of about 15 people standing very near the Veendam's rail, where the allision began, and watched in disbelief as 200-300 pound wooden railing flew up into the air and onto the deck. Initially, I though someone would be crushed by a rail, and shouted, "Get out of there.", and, fortunately, they did, but one fellow slipped and fell.

 

Later, the master announced that the Veendam was "in the center of the channel," and implied that the Artentina's on-deck crane was in operation, which contradicted what I saw. He also stated or implied that the Veendam had been exculpated by the Argentinian Coast Guard.

 

From my vantage point, this allision could have been avoided by a proper lookout, and the master had more than ample time to intervene. I believe a very bad situation was avoided at the last possible moment, and I am amazed that no one got crushed by the flying wood railings.

 

Others may have varying opinions, but these are mine, based on what I saw and heard (not what others told me, but the sounds I heard).

Edited by Maritime51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for updating us on what you saw personally - much appreciated - and, a bit scary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

derrick swung out over the channel and in squeezing between two container ships, the derrick managed to tear off about a 50 foot section of railing on our Deck

 

This is very old news..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

. . . Others may have varying opinions, but these are mine, based on what I saw and heard (not what others told me, but the sounds I heard).

Thank you for the firsthand account.

 

Woody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was likely under the control of the pilot, but the captain is always ultimately responsiible, even with the pilot.

This is a very accurate description of the pilot/captain relationship.

 

There is only one place in the world where the Pilot is in control of the ship rather than the Captain - and that's the Panama Canal. Otherwise, the Pilot is merely an advisor.

This is not correct. The maritime pilot is generally in control of the ship within the dock area, because he is more familiar with his waterway. However, as pointed out, with the exception of the Canal Zone, the captain has both the ultimate responsibility and the right to relieve the pilot of control. Relieving a pilot of control is a major act, and, among other things, legal/financial responsibility of any consequential incidents falls entirely on the shipping company.

 

Until Dec. 31, 1999, in exchange for not allowing a captain to relieve the pilot of control in the Panama Canal, the United States government accepted unlimited financial responsibility for any accidents. After the take back of the Canal by the government of Panama, that government continued to insist on the policy of giving total unrevokable control to the pilot, while at the same time refusing to accept unlimited financial responsibility. Fortunately, the apparent contradiction of those two policies has not come to litigation, since, so far, the Panamanian government has by all accounts done an excellent job of operating the Canal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a very accurate description of the pilot/captain relationship.

 

 

This is not correct. The maritime pilot is generally in control of the ship within the dock area, because he is more familiar with his waterway. However, as pointed out, with the exception of the Canal Zone, the captain has both the ultimate responsibility and the right to relieve the pilot of control. Relieving a pilot of control is a major act, and, among other things, legal/financial responsibility of any consequential incidents falls entirely on the shipping company.

 

Until Dec. 31, 1999, in exchange for not allowing a captain to relieve the pilot of control in the Panama Canal, the United States government accepted unlimited financial responsibility for any accidents. After the take back of the Canal by the government of Panama, that government continued to insist on the policy of giving total unrevokable control to the pilot, while at the same time refusing to accept unlimited financial responsibility. Fortunately, the apparent contradiction of those two policies has not come to litigation, since, so far, the Panamanian government has by all accounts done an excellent job of operating the Canal.

 

It is well-settled under the general maritime law of the U.S. that the master has a duty to intervene, even when the pilotage is compulsory, when, in the exercise of prudent seamanship, he or she knows or should know of a peril to the vessel, crew or passengers. Intervening is NOT a "major act," but rather merely one of due care under the circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
derrick swung out over the channel and in squeezing between two container ships, the derrick managed to tear off about a 50 foot section of railing on our Deck

 

This is very old news..

 

I certainly don't know what you mean by "old news," and I can assure you the "derrick" (ship's on-board crane) did NOT swing "over the channel," but rather it was stationary and had not been in operation for quite some time. To me, it was in a place it had a right to be, though I certainly don't know anything about custom in Buenos Aires or similar ports.

 

Also, it was far more than 50 feet, and more like 100.

 

Had you been there and seen it, I doubt you would pass it off so blithely.:mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Intervening is NOT a "major act," but rather merely one of due care under the circumstances.

This is an exciting addition to CC: arguing about linguistics. From a financial point of view, it is hard to be more "major" than an act which results in your taking entire financial responsibility. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an exciting addition to CC: arguing about linguistics. From a financial point of view, it is hard to be more "major" than an act which results in your taking entire financial responsibility. :rolleyes:

 

You misconstrued my comment: "major" is not a term of art, and means nothing under the general maritime law. Financial responsibility is not a term of art, either. Liability remains fixed and is allocated under the general maritime law, and does not vary based on the act of intervention: if one fails to intervene, the shipowner is liable; if one intervenes and is negligent, the shipowner is liable.

 

Either you don't understand, or you simply took my comments out of context.

 

Point: the shipowner, acting throught the master, HAS A NON-DELEGABLE DUTY TO USE PRUDENT SEAMANSHIP AT ALL TIMES, WHICH CAN MEAN A DUTY TO INTERVENE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, thus "major act" means nothing AND CHANGES NOTHING IN TERMS OF LIABILITY: it REMAINS with the shipowner at all times, but the duty may vary under the circumstances.

 

Linguistics, I suspect, is a misnomer in any event.

Edited by Maritime51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact is this was a chain of events that lead to an incident. Is it customary to have a crane extended over the non working side when another vessel is underway? If it is, is this the best practice during restricted visibility of night operations? In a crowded port operation?

 

I am confident that all parties will investigate the roles each played, and develop any corrective actions moving forward. We are fortunate that no one was seriously injured, the ship's crew responded appropriately and the ship was able to continue it's amazing journey. The ingenuity the crew displayed in coming up with a fix was fantastic, as the metal work might have been easy, but the wood was going to be an issue. Their fix allowed a very important vantage point to remain in use during the cruise.

 

Remember that no one got up on the morning of December 20th, and said hey I think I'll run the ship into a crane today. This is something that is often overlooked in our "blame" society these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fact is this was a chain of events that lead to an incident. Is it customary to have a crane extended over the non working side when another vessel is underway? If it is, is this the best practice during restricted visibility of night operations? In a crowded port operation?

 

THE CRANE WAS IN PLACE AND STATIONARY BEFORE THE VEENDAM GOT UNDERWAY. IT IS CUSTOMARY FOR A MASTER TO USE PRUDENT SEAMANSHIP AND ASSURE A PROPER LOOKOUT BEFORE AND DURING THE TIME A VESSEL GETS UNDERWAY IN A BUSY PORT, OR CROWDED ANCHORAGE WHERE ACTIVE OPERATIONS ARE ON-GOING IN AND AROUND MOORED VESSELS.

 

I am confident that all parties will investigate the roles each played, and develop any corrective actions moving forward. We are fortunate that no one was seriously injured, the ship's crew responded appropriately and the ship was able to continue it's amazing journey. The ingenuity the crew displayed in coming up with a fix was fantastic, as the metal work might have been easy, but the wood was going to be an issue. Their fix allowed a very important vantage point to remain in use during the cruise.

 

THE UNDERWRITERS WILL INVESTIGATE, NOT THE SHIPOWNERS. I AGREE THE CREW MADE A SKILLED, TEMPORARY REPAIR AND COMMEND THE CREW FOR IT. If the "crew" had responded "appropriately, the allision would not have occurred-res ipsa and all that....

 

Remember that no one got up on the morning of December 20th, and said hey I think I'll run the ship into a crane today. This is something that is often overlooked in our "blame" society these days.

 

OUR "BLAME" SOCIETY SIMPLY APPLIES THE LAW ESTABLISHED OVER HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF MARITIME CASES. AS FOR THE APPARENT SOPHISTRY OF "GETTING UP" AS EXCUSE OR MITIGATION, WELL, THERE ARE MANY MARITIME AND AVIATION DISASTERS THAT COULD BE DISMISSED ON SIMILAR GROUNDS, WHICH, OF COURSE, BEGS THE QUESTION OF OUR "BLAME" SOCIETY WHERE WIDOWS AND ORPHANS DEMAND TO BE MADE WHOLE FOR DEAD SPOUSES, ETC. One maritime disaster, the Titanic, comes to mind right off: I doubt ole Captain Smith got up that morning thinking I'll use great speed (custom at the time in ice fields, believe it or not!) to ram an iceberg. Widows and orphans still asserted "blame," and, guess what, liability was confessed but the shipowner, under U.S. law, limited its liability to the pending freight and the value of a few life boats.

 

But, let's take your analogy of "intentional acts" versus simple negligence: both result in liability but one may result in punitive damages.

 

In any event, "Don't cry for me, Argentina," cuz the underwriters, in our "blame society," will pay the damage claims, not you, me or "HAL."

 

ADDENDUM: THE VEENDAM DID NOT LEAVE PORT AT NIGHT-IT WAS BROAD DAYLIGHT! IF YOU THINK THE M/V ARGENTINA IS SOLELY AT FAULT, KEEP DREAMING.

Edited by Maritime51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absent the legal mumbo jumbo I hope that Derrick isn`t in any trouble just because he`s a swinger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absent the legal mumbo jumbo I hope that Derrick isn`t in any trouble just because he`s a swinger.

 

And whatever happened to Allison?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absent the legal mumbo jumbo I hope that Derrick isn`t in any trouble just because he`s a swinger.

That was the problem: he wasn't a "swinger."

 

Double, double, boil and trouble....

 

Well, I suppose you are a Poet, and don't know it, but your feet show it, cuz they are Long Fellows!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am confident that all parties will investigate the roles each played, and develop any corrective actions moving forward

 

Did I use the words moving when referring to the crane, counselor???

 

Did I state the M/V Argentina was solely at fault, counselor??

 

Did I use the word fault anywhere in my statement??? No I did not, because in my culture we look for HOW, WHY and how can another occurrence be prevented, and in the "blame culture" people like you look for fault...WHO ...and Who's fault was this.

 

Try not to yell so much..it will keep your blood pressure down :)

Edited by Learoy60

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have even apparently already boiled this down to negligence (I hope because good luck showing intentional act), did you consider error (individual, organizational, procedural). I do not have all the facts, but again you saw everything right???

 

So yes that must mean it was negligence, because a lawyer saw the whole thing...yes counselor you must be right.

 

You are right about one thing though as to the maritime and aviation industries and their past, but do not stop there let's make sure we add the oil, mining, nuclear, medical professions as well...and of course let's not forget on of the biggest of all....NASA. Lot of good rich information out there as to accidents and incidents that happen not as a result of negligence or intentional acts, but good ole pure simple human error...because to err is human and to drift is also human.

 

The night is short and this could be a very interesting conversation over a drink.

 

Have a good night

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have even apparently already boiled this down to negligence (I hope because good luck showing intentional act), did you consider error (individual, organizational, procedural). I do not have all the facts, but again you saw everything right???

 

So yes that must mean it was negligence, because a lawyer saw the whole thing...yes counselor you must be right.

 

You are right about one thing though as to the maritime and aviation industries and their past, but do not stop there let's make sure we add the oil, mining, nuclear, medical professions as well...and of course let's not forget on of the biggest of all....NASA. Lot of good rich information out there as to accidents and incidents that happen not as a result of negligence or intentional acts, but good ole pure simple human error...because to err is human and to drift is also human.

 

The night is short and this could be a very interesting conversation over a drink.

 

Have a good night

May I suggest that you change the tinfoil in your hat as, obviously, it is not functioning per specifications. Believe whatever you wish. Oh, I'm a defense lawyer, so from the warped perspective of one who defends against negligence, it appears rather clear to me. As for yelling, well, maybe it was "negligent yelling" on my part since some customs are not known to me and I merely wished to make my comments distinct from your quoted ones. Anyway, if we wish to look for first causes, well, that's a long, long teleological "drink."

 

As for the other industries you cite, it appears you grasp my point: no one "wakes up" (except for those committing intentional wrongs) ready to be negligent as that is the very defenition-the lack of due care in failing to do something or in doing something a reasonable person would not do. As for the concept of fault, well, you can take that one back to the Roman lawyers and farther-if you don't like the society you live in, well, so sorry.

 

Finally, may I suggest that we don't do metaphysics, here, and that the sacred and the profane have nothing to do with how, why or whether a party or parties, historically, are made whole or pay damages for acts or failures to act. It's simple, really, and doesn't involve anything but public policy, fixed over centuries, not the search for flickering shadows on the wall of Plato's cave. (Here is a simple formula that may help you grasp the distinction: since to "err" is "human," humans pay for the damages they cause other humans, whereas being divine means one can't err, hence one doesn't pay damages. Now, of course, there is the defense of Act of God or force majeure, which means a human didn't "err" because what happened was the unforeseable result of an unforeseable force-though had the "human," in using ordinary care, been able to foresee either...well, you take my point.)

Edited by Maritime51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did I use the words moving when referring to the crane, counselor???

 

Did I state the M/V Argentina was solely at fault, counselor??

 

Did I use the word fault anywhere in my statement??? No I did not, because in my culture we look for HOW, WHY and how can another occurrence be prevented, and in the "blame culture" people like you look for fault...WHO ...and Who's fault was this.

 

Try not to yell so much..it will keep your blood pressure down :)

 

Once again, in my opinion, those are the most reasonable or necessary inferences from what you did state-oh, there goes the lawyer again....

 

I gues what I should have said was try not to use tactical semantic ambiguity so you can argue your "intent" later-being clear and unambiguous is usually helpful in dialog.

Edited by Maritime51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have even apparently already boiled this down to negligence (I hope because good luck showing intentional act), did you consider error (individual, organizational, procedural). I do not have all the facts, but again you saw everything right???

 

So yes that must mean it was negligence, because a lawyer saw the whole thing...yes counselor you must be right.

 

You are right about one thing though as to the maritime and aviation industries and their past, but do not stop there let's make sure we add the oil, mining, nuclear, medical professions as well...and of course let's not forget on of the biggest of all....NASA. Lot of good rich information out there as to accidents and incidents that happen not as a result of negligence or intentional acts, but good ole pure simple human error...because to err is human and to drift is also human.

 

The night is short and this could be a very interesting conversation over a drink.

 

Have a good night

 

Oh, one request: can you stop the ad hominem attacks and keep the "lawyer" thing out of it?

 

First, I said these were my opinions, not facts, and, secondly, you and everyone else can give my opinions (not facts) whatever weight you wish, including some, none or whatever.

 

Why not deal with the issues substantively rather than using the "lawyer card" to potential deny me credility or to attack my opinions (which you are free to do)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those not interested in casuistry, here are some more of my mere opinions of how this "could" play out in a hypothetical personal injury brought by the old bird who fell, and defended by me (I know, ego....):

 

1. The HAL carriage agreement contains a forum selection clause, and, as I recall, all suits by passengers must be brought in state court in Seattle;

 

2. The state courts are bound to apply the general maritime law of the U.S., including its conflicts doctrines;

 

3. U.S. substantive law would likely be applied;

 

4. Under the forum's evidentiary law and the general maritime law, when a moving object strikes a fixed object, the moving object is presumed to be at "fault" (Yes, Virginia, there are consequences less than divine for simple errors in navigation and management of a vessel);

 

5. The "moving object" may rebut by showing ordinary care under the circumstances, or assert some fault on the part of another (only a defense in state court if the plaintiff is paritally at fault viz, Washington state, e.g., the old bird lingered too long in a place of obvious danger), and either a judge or jury must determine sole fault or due care, but it's a bit tough to overcome this presumption.

 

The evidentiary issue is the so-called "Oregon rule," which makes it clear it is human and "error" to strike a fixed object. For an interesting "chat" about this, see http://admiraltymaritimelaw.blogspot.com/2010/03/comparative-fault-and-oregon-rule.html

 

So, there it is, my mere opinions on "fault," "error," divinity, metaphysics and HAL's forum selection clause: you be the judge!

Edited by Maritime51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What did Shakespeare say about lawyers? Please refresh my memory.

 

 

On the contrary....I personally find maritime's opinions fascinating and extremely informative. I don't really understand the negativity...he was there and these are his (very) informed opinions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Victory Cruise Lines Sweepstakes - Enter now for a chance to win a free 9-night cruise on Victory II
      • Holiday Exchange - Jingle and Mingle 2018
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Community Contests
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×