Ever Given report highlights Suez Canal pilots’ role in grounding
gcaptain.com
gcaptain.com
I used to know both the Captain and Chief Engineer of a large ( 600+ foot long ) freighter on the Great Lakes ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes ). The latter told stories about the former arguing (via radio) with the ship's owners, about speed vs. safety. At least once, after the Captain had backtracked the ship to a safe-ish anchorage in the face of worsening weather, he told the owners "I'll get your ship, crew, and cargo to [destination] long before the Edmund Fitzgerald does" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Fitzgerald ).
(The actual language was saltier than that. The Captain got away with it, and retired a success.)
That's the view from Panama, which puts a huge number of ships through channels narrower than the Suez Canal.
Fortunately, in the aftermath, the wild ideas proposed for getting the Ever Given out unstuck were ignored, and Smit Salvage, which is a very cautious outfit, was brought in.
[1] https://gcaptain.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Final-Invest...
It’s a catch 22 and he probably should have demanded tugs but then he’d be in trouble with the bosses for costings.
Do it fast do it cheap and don’t fuck up.
Having worked in a multinational company where many people speak other languages than the offical language I have noticed that people often don't realise how important it is to understand why they came to a decision. They'll discuss something in a second language then say the outcome to everyone. Often people don't want to make a fuss and ask how they came to that conclusion and important information is kept from the team. I've seen the issues this cause on non important issues in tech. I can't imagine how it feels when it comes to important things where people's safety is involed.
1) Have a plan and try to stick to it. Rapid changes (hard port/hard starboard) without having a heading is dangerous.
2) Relying on local pilot/expert knowledge is important, but the captain knows their ship better. The expert should be considered an advisor and shouldn't be giving direct commands (especially without rationale). Experts can be wrong, so don't blindly follow their recommendations.
3) Communication is critical. The language barrier between the pilots and the ship's crew was pointed out repeatedly in the report. If you can't understand the rationale for a decision, blindly following it puts you at risk. It is important that everyone is communicating in a way that the whole team (pilot + ship crew) can understand.
4) The strong, changing winds were a known entity before the ship started the canal transit. Sometimes the risk isn't worth risking the whole ship and delay is warranted. Related -- don't be afraid to ask for help. Tug assistance would probably have made this crossing much less eventful.
I very much view this incident through the lens of the XY problem[1] ... don't ask me how to do a solution. Instead, tell me the problem or what you are trying to achieve, and then we can figure out the best solution to a problem. In this case, the pilots kept telling the helm to steer hard to port/starboard. This made it difficult for the ship's crew to achieve the actual goal -- keep the ship in the middle of the canal.
It should also be noted that this is the Panama Maritime Authority's report (the country the ship is registered in). The Suez Canal Authority had their own assessment and didn't participate in this one at all. The initial SCA comments blamed weather and visibility for the grounding. Later they blamed the captain entirely (for too many commands, ironically). There is a lot of money at stake here, so reader beware.
My guess is that there is now a different cost/benefit calculation for super large container ships traversing the canal during high wind conditions. Or at least, I hope there is.
I'd also expect a tech site like ArsTechnica to link directly to a security CVE. Same concept, different audiences.
Who could argue?
As for visibility: I'm not on the scene, but one would think that, with all the money at stake, the canal and the ships would have enough instrumentation that visuals are completely unnecessary.
It was pretty clear from the report that they had a ton of data about the ship's speed, position, rotation, etc. It was quite detailed, not knowing where they were wasn't the problem.
The report also showed how much the wind was changing directions at the time. It was all over the place. Again, it was a known factor, just not given the appropriate weight.
Not to mention the ships most likely already have transponders.
So it does seem like a "You're getting too close to the bank!" alarm should have been screaming at them. And probably was. Not responding properly was the issue.
From the report though, you’re right that it seemed liked they already knew where they were in the canal with enough accuracy to know they were in trouble.
I'm going to have to research it more though.
https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/27/lidar-exposes-the-remnants...
During the original Suez blockage news cycle, some maritime experts pointed out just how absurdly stressful it is to navigate a canal:
> [Captain Bill Kavanagh] said: “The procedure is very stressful for the ship. Those ships are on the high seas and have a very good routine. Then they arrive in Port Said or even Suez… and suddenly all hell breaks loose.
> “There’s a lot going on, a lot of people coming on board, the Suez Canal crew come on board, and at least one pilot comes on board. Those ships are actually piloted by an expert who knows the canal very well… nevertheless, this is a stranger and a new person is part of the bridge team.
> He explained that a convoy could consist of around 10 ships, while a large lake in the middle of the canal - the Great Bitter Lake - allows traffic to flow smoothly in both directions despite the canal itself only being a single lane.
> [...]
> However, he said physics effects such as the Bernoulli effect can result in very sudden changes in a ship’s course, while strong winds may have been another factor.
CNN published a simulator where you get to try to go through the Suez Canal yourself: https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/03/cnnix-steership/ This simulator is, of course, ignoring things like communication difficulties caused by language barrier (they speak Arabic), some of the more nitty gritty physics of the task, tides, safety concerns, etc.
There is also a canal navigation simulator in meatspace, if you're up to the task - https://interestingengineering.com/transportation/a-mini-sue...
This has got to be top ten of most wrongest comments on hacker news.
If we consider modern large jet airliners and cargo planes to be equivalent to large ships, most of those planes have advanced automation.
:)
Airplane automation has more in common with drawing a line on a map than with piloting a big ship in a small canal.
Think about it, 2D plane, tough medium that has low visibility, can hide many things. Tides, currents.. EVERYTHING has a potential to be a difficult maneuver / emergency situation.
Just because it was an earlier mode of travel doesn't mean it's simple.