# Maersk Alabama - lawsuit issued



## G0SLP

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-says-risked-Maersk-Alabama-crews-lives.html

Can't say I'm surprised by this, to be honest. I have very mixed feelings, as I'm sure others will too.


----------



## ben27

good day goslp.sm.today.08:01.re:marsk Alabama lawsuit issued.it would be that the crew want there share of the spoils(damages)the captain has been the center of attention in the media and Hollywood,thanks for posting this interesting story.regards ben27


----------



## Klaatu83

This is an interesting and thought-provoking story. Nevertheless, I'm not entirely convinced of the validity of the lawsuit. This ship was sailing to Mobassa via the Suez Canal. I don't think there was any way they could have avoided sailing through the region covered by the Somali pirates unless they re-routed the ship all the way around the Cape of Good Hope, and probably not even then. After all, those pirates are known to have attacked ships as far south as the the Mozambique Channel.


----------



## chadburn

It's a bit pointless giving the Ships Master all the latest intelligence (most probably AWACS sourced?) when he totally ignores it.


----------



## G0SLP

chadburn said:


> It's a bit pointless giving the Ships Master all the latest intelligence (most probably AWACS sourced?) when he totally ignores it.


True enough, but the lawsuit doesn't mention the Master as a Respondent; only the Owners & the Crewing Agency. This is perhaps where we find out who was actually 'pulling the strings', as it were.


----------



## callpor

Klaatu83 said:


> This is an interesting and thought-provoking story. Nevertheless, I'm not entirely convinced of the validity of the lawsuit. This ship was sailing to Mobassa via the Suez Canal. I don't think there was any way they could have avoided sailing through the region covered by the Somali pirates unless they re-routed the ship all the way around the Cape of Good Hope, and probably not even then. After all, those pirates are known to have attacked ships as far south as the the Mozambique Channel.


Klaatu83; Just to clarify, the Maersk Alabama was sailing to Mombasa from Salalah in Oman so could have avoided sailing through the high risk area.
Could be an interesting case, especially as the film premiers on 11 October?


----------



## James_C

I doubt sailing 600 odd miles out would have made much difference. Five weeks before Maersk Alabama was attacked my own ship was attacked by 3 skiffs some 260 miles East of Mombasa. At the time we were proceeding due West towards that port having kept our distance from the African coast - we too had come from Salalah. 
Between 2008-2009 the Somali pirates were at their most active and attacking ships all over the place, even up to 1000 miles from the African coast and well to the South of Mombasa. 
The only reasonable way the Master of the Maersk Alabama could have avoided the danger area was to refuse to take his ship to sea in the first place.


----------



## chadburn

James, did your ship receive Intel reports on a regular basis?


----------



## James_C

chadburn said:


> James, did your ship receive Intel reports on a regular basis?


We did, courtesy of the 'bat phone' to Northwood and our onboard SGF, however our own attack came totally out of blue in intel terms. There were ships being attacked all over the place at the time, including one within visual range of ourselves when in the Gulf of Aden and indeed our own sistership (homeward bound) was approached the week before.
The powers that be did ask why we were only 260 miles from the Kenyan coast, to which the reply was sent "how do you expect us to get to Mombasa if we stay away from the Kenyan coast?"...


----------



## chadburn

Thanks for your answer James.


----------



## Klaatu83

James_C said:


> I doubt sailing 600 odd miles out would have made much difference. Five weeks before Maersk Alabama was attacked my own ship was attacked by 3 skiffs some 260 miles East of Mombasa. At the time we were proceeding due West towards that port having kept our distance from the African coast - we too had come from Salalah.
> Between 2008-2009 the Somali pirates were at their most active and attacking ships all over the place, even up to 1000 miles from the African coast and well to the South of Mombasa.
> The only reasonable way the Master of the Maersk Alabama could have avoided the danger area was to refuse to take his ship to sea in the first place.


James_C: I agree with you. Although I retired in 2005, and the last time I sailed in the Arabian Sea was in 2003, I was able to follow the Somali pirate events in 2009 in detail via the ICC website. They were attacking ships as far south as the Mozambique Channel and as far east as the Indian coast. There is no question that they were attacking ships off the coast of Kenya, as well as off Yemen and Oman. It strikes me that there was no way that the Maersk Alabama could have avoided the region of pirate activity at that time unless she simply avoided Mobassa entirely. In fact, if they were sailing from Salalah, then for all intents and purposes, they were already IN the pirate zone.


----------



## Tony Collins

With regard to the film, it is an American film which are always made to show Americans in good light. Twas always so. There a many examples of events that had taken place elsewhere and involving other nations, than when they appear on film "It was Americans wot done it".

A recent example is "We bought a Zoo!" which although a true story which happened in Devon UK, is portrayed as happening in the good'ol USA. And of course those of us old enough to know the real story of the capture of an Enigma machine off a German U-boat know that it was a British party that recovered it, but the film portrays it as an American adventure.

The Yanks always have to be the heroes, whether it is true or not. 

In the case under discussion, it would appear to be misplaced bravado on the part of the Captain, which got the ship into trouble. A little cir***spection may have avoided the whole event.


----------



## joemcd

You can give the Master all the intelligence in the world about where and/or when pirate attacks are likely to occur but at the end of the day it is his decision on what route he takes, in my honest opinion the Master should not be hailed as a hero as he put the lives of the rest of his crew in danger with his "Gung-ho" attitude.
How he was supposed to get to Mombasa from Salalah and avoid the high risk area is not the question that should be asked


----------



## OOCy

I appreciate that you cannot believe everything that you read in the press, but the attached certainly does give a different slant to the case:

http://nypost.com/2013/10/13/crew-members-deny-captain-phillips-heroism/


----------



## kypros

Had Nelson been alive he would have been most amused at this nonsense with so called pirates,all that fire power out there and still letting these crooks away with it.KYPROS


----------



## John Rogers

What are all the Anti-America posts about, the movie is plain old Hollywood BS, pumping up their far left wing agenda and making money, not America. Everybody is looking for a Hero and Hollywood is the place to go and find them. And remember most of us would be speaking German if it wasn’t for the Americans. In my eyes the heroes are the men who stormed the beaches and died at Normandy. Television and the Press even have the gall to call the over rated, and over paid sports personalities heroes. Are we forgetting that SN is made up of many posters from all over the world and we should put our brain in gear before spouting of about other countries.
Thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## Scelerat

John Rogers said:


> What are all the Anti-America posts about, the movie is plain old Hollywood BS, pumping up their far left wing agenda and making money, not America. Everybody is looking for a Hero and Hollywood is the place to go and find them. And remember most of us would be speaking German if it wasn’t for the Americans. In my eyes the heroes are the men who stormed the beaches and died at Normandy. Television and the Press even have the gall to call the over rated, and over paid sports personalities heroes. Are we forgetting that SN is made up of many posters from all over the world and we should put our brain in gear before spouting of about other countries.
> Thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it.


Which posts are they? I'm unaware of any "anti-American" posts on this thread.
A different question, in response, is where did your Hollywood "far left wing agenda" from? I'd appreciate it if you can name me even one Hollywood film that evidences a "far left wing agenda".


----------



## John Rogers

Hit a nerve did I.


----------



## joemcd

John Rogers said:


> What are all the Anti-America posts about, the movie is plain old Hollywood BS, pumping up their far left wing agenda and making money, not America. Everybody is looking for a Hero and Hollywood is the place to go and find them. And remember most of us would be speaking German if it wasn’t for the Americans. In my eyes the heroes are the men who stormed the beaches and died at Normandy. Television and the Press even have the gall to call the over rated, and over paid sports personalities heroes. Are we forgetting that SN is made up of many posters from all over the world and we should put our brain in gear before spouting of about other countries.
> Thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it.


Where on earth has that come from?


----------



## LouisB

John Rogers said:


> What are all the Anti-America posts about, the movie is plain old Hollywood BS, pumping up their far left wing agenda and making money, not America. Everybody is looking for a Hero and Hollywood is the place to go and find them. And remember most of us would be speaking German if it wasn’t for the Americans. In my eyes the heroes are the men who stormed the beaches and died at Normandy. Television and the Press even have the gall to call the over rated, and over paid sports personalities heroes. Are we forgetting that SN is made up of many posters from all over the world and we should put our brain in gear before spouting of about other countries.
> Thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it.


I would possibly have put it somewhat differently, but in essence I'm inclined to agree with your posting. As much as it may hurt some people, Europe and Britain in particular, would be in a very sorry state without the help, both apparent and hidden, that our American cousins have given us over the years. Whilst probably not intended we are inclined to pass biased and somewhat critical comment on the doings of other nationalities whilst hiding our own washing.

LouisB. (Scribe)


----------



## john shaw

_"With regard to the film, it is an American film which are always made to show Americans in good light_" #(American for number)12

_"the movie is plain old Hollywood BS"_ #16


This thread is really about the lawsuit,rather than the questionable film- there's another thread on the same subject but really about the piracy.

*Quote: "the film is based on real events"*

Says it all really.. the Hollywood dream factory can, and does, do as it wants when "based on", eg "reimagine" (I just love that current buzzword) events for cinematic/dramatic effect. Nothing new there.

Frankly, I wouldn't go see it, as that is exactly what I would expect from a "star"-led "blockbuster" movie- it's not a do***entary for God's sake. We all know from Hollywood that John Wayne won WW2 , and then Korea.

Tom Hanks obviously has to be the usual all-American hometown-boy hero. I doubt he'd have wanted to play an allegedly duplicitous and untruthful central character, it's not his type of role ..

Hollywood will make a mint.The master will make a mint. Lawyers, the great US industry, will make a mint. The US gets a hero when it needs one and the "feel-good-factor" while everything around crumbles, and the establishment reinforces the USA's status in the world to the all too gullible insular population for whom "World News" is within North America and "World Series" refers to a sport that includes teams solely from North America.

Soon, nobody will care what was the truth of the event, and the movie will go to DVD....................


----------



## joemcd

LouisB said:


> I would possibly have put it somewhat differently, but in essence I'm inclined to agree with your posting. As much as it may hurt some people, Europe and Britain in particular, would be in a very sorry state without the help, both apparent and hidden, that our American cousins have given us over the years. Whilst probably not intended we are inclined to pass biased and somewhat critical comment on the doings of other nationalities whilst hiding our own washing.
> 
> LouisB. (Scribe)


And another! Am I replying to the same thread as you guys? ie; Was the Master correct in taking his vessel well inside a high risk zone when there is ample evidence that warnings were given to avoid it? I care not whether the Master was American, English or Portuguese, his nationality is not in question, his actions are.


----------



## James_C

joemcd said:


> And another! Am I replying to the same thread as you guys? ie; Was the Master correct in taking his vessel well inside a high risk zone when there is ample evidence that warnings were given to avoid it? I care not whether the Master was American, English or Portuguese, his nationality is not in question, his actions are.


The entire Western Indian Ocean is a high risk zone, there is no way to avoid it. I know some Masters take the view that if they keep further out then that's effectively a few extra days in the danger area, however staying closer in (circa 300 miles) means that whilst still in the "danger" area, they can clear it quicker.
As it is, both Salalah AND Mombasa are in the high risk zone with ships having been attacked and taken a matter of miles from those ports, so ships operating in that region have no place of safety to speak of.
Knowing how zealous the USCG is when it comes to prosecuting individuals of crimes (real or imagined), if Phillips had a case to answer I suspect they'd have been all over him like a rash.


----------



## G0SLP

"Knowing how zealous the USCG is when it comes to prosecuting individuals of crimes (real or imagined), if Phillips had a case to answer I suspect they'd have been all over him like a rash"

That's a very good point.


----------



## joemcd

James_C said:


> The entire Western Indian Ocean is a high risk zone, there is no way to avoid it. I know some Masters take the view that if they keep further out then that's effectively a few extra days in the danger area, however staying closer in (circa 300 miles) means that whilst still in the "danger" area, they can clear it quicker.
> As it is, both Salalah AND Mombasa are in the high risk zone with ships having been attacked and taken a matter of miles from those ports, so ships operating in that region have no place of safety to speak of.
> Knowing how zealous the USCG is when it comes to prosecuting individuals of crimes (real or imagined), if Phillips had a case to answer I suspect they'd have been all over him like a rash.


And there is your answer, "Some Masters take the view" when intelligence tells them 600 miles is the safer option they will opt for 300 miles, it was his call and he called it wrong on this occasion, and by calling it wrong he put his crews lives at risk, quite why the USCG have not been all over him like a rash I don't know.


----------



## James_C

joemcd said:


> And there is your answer, "Some Masters take the view" when intelligence tells them 600 miles is the safer option they will opt for 300 miles,


Except that ships have been attacked as far as 1200 miles offshore, hence why some are willing to take the chance. It's also worth remembering that the further out you are, the farther away you will be from any help from naval assets. The passage between Salalah and Mombasa will usually take between 5-7 days, of that passage a vessel will spend the best part of 4 days within the 600 mile 'limit' as both ports are in the high risk area, with Salalah itself being in the Gulf of Aden. Running down there at 300 miles offshore produces a passage saving of almost 2 days. 
So it comes down to a choice of going further offshore with the attendant risks involved which include extra time in the danger area, or remaining closer in to expedite passage through that area.
In this case the other thing to consider is that Phillips will no doubt have been under heavy pressure from Maersk to get to Mombasa on time, as that port is hopelessly congested and missing the berthing slot can mean upto a week drifting around offshore as there are no suitable anchorages.
As regards advice, as you probably know, the industry standard tome is 'BMP 4', yet nowhere in that book does it recommend minimum safe distances offshore. The USCG/Maritime Administration will have produced detailed recommendations/instructions to US flag ships operating in that area (as TRANSEC does for UK ships), and since he hasn't had his ticket taken off him it would suggest he was not in breach of such flag state instructions.



> it was his call and he called it wrong on this occasion, and by calling it wrong he put his crews lives at risk, quite why the USCG have not been all over him like a rash I don't know.


Perhaps because they decided there isn't a case to answer. Lets not forget that many Masters have called it right (in your words) and stood out much further offshore, yet their vessels have still been attacked with injuries and loss of life with much the same regularity, especially after the various Naval forces tightened up their patrols off the Somali coast, something that likely won't have been lost on Phillips.


----------



## G0SLP

This is one of those "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations, but as Jim says, the inaction by the USCG does speak volumes.


----------



## LouisB

James_C said:


> Except that ships have been attacked as far as 1200 miles offshore, hence why some are willing to take the chance. It's also worth remembering that the further out you are, the farther away you will be from any help from naval assets. The passage between Salalah and Mombasa will usually take between 5-7 days, of that passage a vessel will spend the best part of 4 days within the 600 mile 'limit' as both ports are in the high risk area, with Salalah itself being in the Gulf of Aden. Running down there at 300 miles offshore produces a passage saving of almost 2 days.
> So it comes down to a choice of going further offshore with the attendant risks involved which include extra time in the danger area, or remaining closer in to expedite passage through that area.
> In this case the other thing to consider is that Phillips will no doubt have been under heavy pressure from Maersk to get to Mombasa on time, as that port is hopelessly congested and missing the berthing slot can mean upto a week drifting around offshore as there are no suitable anchorages.
> As regards advice, as you probably know, the industry standard tome is 'BMP 4', yet nowhere in that book does it recommend minimum safe distances offshore. The USCG/Maritime Administration will have produced detailed recommendations/instructions to US flag ships operating in that area (as TRANSEC does for UK ships), and since he hasn't had his ticket taken off him it would suggest he was not in breach of such flag state instructions.
> 
> Perhaps because they decided there isn't a case to answer. Lets not forget that many Masters have called it right (in your words) and stood out much further offshore, yet their vessels have still been attacked with injuries and loss of life with much the same regularity, especially after the various Naval forces tightened up their patrols off the Somali coast, something that likely won't have been lost on Phillips.


A very sensible and professional summary.

LouisB. (Scribe)


----------



## joemcd

James_C said:


> Except that ships have been attacked as far as 1200 miles offshore, hence why some are willing to take the chance. It's also worth remembering that the further out you are, the farther away you will be from any help from naval assets. The passage between Salalah and Mombasa will usually take between 5-7 days, of that passage a vessel will spend the best part of 4 days within the 600 mile 'limit' as both ports are in the high risk area, with Salalah itself being in the Gulf of Aden. Running down there at 300 miles offshore produces a passage saving of almost 2 days.
> So it comes down to a choice of going further offshore with the attendant risks involved which include extra time in the danger area, or remaining closer in to expedite passage through that area.
> In this case the other thing to consider is that Phillips will no doubt have been under heavy pressure from Maersk to get to Mombasa on time, as that port is hopelessly congested and missing the berthing slot can mean upto a week drifting around offshore as there are no suitable anchorages.
> As regards advice, as you probably know, the industry standard tome is 'BMP 4', yet nowhere in that book does it recommend minimum safe distances offshore. The USCG/Maritime Administration will have produced detailed recommendations/instructions to US flag ships operating in that area (as TRANSEC does for UK ships), and since he hasn't had his ticket taken off him it would suggest he was not in breach of such flag state instructions.
> 
> Perhaps because they decided there isn't a case to answer. Lets not forget that many Masters have called it right (in your words) and stood out much further offshore, yet their vessels have still been attacked with injuries and loss of life with much the same regularity, especially after the various Naval forces tightened up their patrols off the Somali coast, something that likely won't have been lost on Phillips.


Jim,
The logistics involved in getting from A to B are not the issue, a maritime warning was issued advising ships to clear the Somali coast by at least 600 miles, Capt Phillips chose to ignore that maritime warning for his own reasons, by doing so his vessel was attacked and the lives of his crew were put at risk, had he sailed outside the 600 mile "safety zone" then he could claim that he had done everything to alleviate the risk of being attacked, he did not.
Pressure from Maersk may or may not have been a factor in his decision, we do not know that, a passage saving of 2 days should not enter into any decision regarding the safety of the vessel or crew, nor should the congestion at Mombasa be factored into his decision.
As I said earlier, I have no idea why the USCG have remained silent on this, and nor do you, what we do know is that they have, which I also find interesting.
I sincerely hope that Capt Phillips does not have to appear in any court to defend his actions, and I cannot see this going that far, but that remains to be seen.
Joe.


----------



## G0SLP

The fact remains, though, that both Salalah and Mombasa are/were within the 'high risk' area anyway, so you would have 600 miles to sail 'out' & then 600 miles 'in' - and there are no defined 'shipping lanes' for vessels to transit to/from those ports whilst escorted, unlike the route through the Gulf of Aden. Remember that even the presence of the Naval Task Force didn't stop all pirate activity in the Gulf of Aden.


----------



## Scelerat

LouisB said:


> I would possibly have put it somewhat differently, but in essence I'm inclined to agree with your posting. As much as it may hurt some people, Europe and Britain in particular, would be in a very sorry state without the help, both apparent and hidden, that our American cousins have given us over the years. Whilst probably not intended we are inclined to pass biased and somewhat critical comment on the doings of other nationalities whilst hiding our own washing.
> 
> LouisB. (Scribe)


And what does this comment have to do with this thread?


----------



## kypros

Yes this thread as got a bit off the original subject have to agree with John Rogers any who gets upset by the BS from hollywood is very touchy indeed always recall an American on our local radio when asked did he enjoy his 12 months visit to the UK, he said that the only thing that disappointed him was our TV saying he never thought we would buy the rubbish that they were force fed from Hollywood believing we would be a bit more discerning as he always prefered in general UK produced programmes.KYPROS


----------



## John Rogers

Scelerat said:


> Which posts are they? I'm unaware of any "anti-American" posts on this thread.
> A different question, in response, is where did your Hollywood "far left wing agenda" from? I'd appreciate it if you can name me even one Hollywood film that evidences a "far left wing agenda".



With regard to the film, it is an American film which are always made to show Americans in good light. Twas always so. There a many examples of events that had taken place elsewhere and involving other nations, than when they appear on film "It was Americans wot done it".

A recent example is "We bought a Zoo!" which although a true story which happened in Devon UK, is portrayed as happening in the good'ol USA. And of course those of us old enough to know the real story of the capture of an Enigma machine off a German U-boat know that it was a British party that recovered it, but the film portrays it as an American adventure.

The Yanks always have to be the heroes, whether it is true or not. 

Answer.There are three or four more on the other thread,however this proves the point I am trying to make. 


Question.Can you name me even one Hollywood film that evidences a "far left wing agenda".[/QUOTE]


Answer.How about a dozen or more. Plus I have another 20 -30 more,but we have beat this horse to death.



http://www.imdb.com/list/iJAEJJUf-mg/


----------



## trotterdotpom

An inaccurate film "based on true events"! Wow, that's a turn up.

Apparently the ship had a crew of 20, one was the Master, 11 are involved in the lawsuit. Just curious, why the other 7 aren't trying to get onto the gravy train?

John T


----------



## Scelerat

trotterdotpom said:


> An inaccurate film "based on true events"! Wow, that's a turn up.
> 
> Apparently the ship had a crew of 20, one was the Master, 11 are involved in the lawsuit. Just curious, why the other 7 aren't trying to get onto the gravy train?
> 
> John T


They've already accepted a payoff.


----------



## Scelerat

John Rogers said:


> Answer.There are three or four more on the other thread,however this proves the point I am trying to make.
> 
> 
> Question.Can you name me even one Hollywood film that evidences a "far left wing agenda".



Answer.How about a dozen or more. Plus I have another 20 -30 more,but we have beat this horse to death.
http://www.imdb.com/list/iJAEJJUf-mg/[/QUOTE]

You may think so, but unless you can offer examples it appears to be an unsupported assertion.
As far as the anti-Americanisms are concerned, of what relevance are posts on other threads?


----------



## trotterdotpom

Scelerat: "Question.Can you name me even one Hollywood film that evidences a "far left wing agenda"."

Not off hand, but I bet if you Google Joseph McCarthy you'll find a few. Boy, old Joe could pick those Reds. Even that fat commie git, Orson Welles, got nailed.

John T


----------



## John Rogers

Scelerat said:


> Answer.How about a dozen or more. Plus I have another 20 -30 more,but we have beat this horse to death.
> http://www.imdb.com/list/iJAEJJUf-mg/


You may think so, but unless you can offer examples it appears to be an unsupported assertion.
As far as the anti-Americanisms are concerned, of what relevance are posts on other threads?[/QUOTE]


Read the Captain Phillips thread.


----------



## Scelerat

John Rogers said:


> You may think so, but unless you can offer examples it appears to be an unsupported assertion.
> As far as the anti-Americanisms are concerned, of what relevance are posts on other threads?



Read the Captain Phillips thread.[/QUOTE]

How is that thread relevant? It was on this thread that you complained about the anti-American posts. Surely, if you're going to complain about anti-American posts, the thread on which they're posted would be the thread to complain on?


----------



## Scelerat

John Rogers said:


> You may think so, but unless you can offer examples it appears to be an unsupported assertion.
> As far as the anti-Americanisms are concerned, of what relevance are posts on other threads?



Read the Captain Phillips thread.[/QUOTE]

I've seen the article that you've provided the link to. Leaving aside the fact that many of those films weren't produced by Hollywood, the article itself is something of a right wing rant, clearly missing the point that Hollywood is owned by big business and large corporations whose purpose is to make money. I wouldn't describe any of the Hollywood films listed as "far left wing". The writer even thinks that the film "Reds" is "far left wing", because it is about a couple of American communists, I suppose........
Still, not credible evidence that Hollywood has a far left wing agenda, I'm afraid.


----------



## Varley

To ascribe any flavour of political or xenophobic slant to Hollywood's output (post McCarthy anyway) seems itself paranoid.

As a US institution it serves primarily a US audience and naturally favours storylines with a feel-good factor for that audience.

The Spanish and French view of Trafalgar is very different to that of the British - less of a defeat, more 'That's done for that short ****d little bugger and just in time for dejeuner too'.

Making our new world cousins feel late for every important international engagement is not xenophobic it is just leg-pulling.


----------



## Scelerat

John Rogers said:


> Read the Captain Phillips thread.


I've just re-read it. I can't find anything that could be described as "anti-American" there either.


----------



## McCloggie

_Pressure from Maersk may or may not have been a factor in his decision, we do not know that, a passage saving of 2 days should not enter into any decision regarding the safety of the vessel or crew, nor should the congestion at Mombasa be factored into his decision_

While I cannot comment on Maersk Line's policies, it seems to me that that the Captain is put in a no-win situation. Maersk head office will, I suspect, determine supposedly safe routes and obviously run to a timetable. 

Yes, it is the Captain's final decision and he is in charge but if the instructions (which will be advice) from Copenhagen are faulty or wrong, what does the Captain do?

He can go against Maersk policy - and that I do know is a non-starter - or he follows Copenhagen instructions and puts himself in danger.

If - and it is a big IF - he went against advice, did not question his route, did not ask for clarification or another route then the Captain was wrong. If he followed what Maersk forced him to do then Maersk is wrong - the Captain becomes the fall guy for company incompetency.

Knowing Maersk and their management systems, I would say that the Captain appears to be wrong in that he did not submit an alternative plan but I say again, I do not know the facts so can only give an opinion.

McC


----------



## Tony Collins

John Rogers said:


> The Yanks always have to be the heroes, whether it is true or not.
> 
> Answer.There are three or four more on the other thread,however this proves the point I am trying to make.
> 
> 
> Question.Can you name me even one Hollywood film that evidences a "far left wing agenda".





> Answer.How about a dozen or more. Plus I have another 20 -30 more,but we have beat this horse to death.






John as the author of a post lifted without "quotes" into a post of yours, perhaps I should have been more specific. My comments was meant to be "Anti- Hollywood" rather than "Anti-American".

The opening words of my post were, however "With regards to the film", which I had hoped had made my inference clear. 

I apologise if my intention escaped you.


----------



## John Rogers

Tony Collins said:


> John as the author of a post lifted without "quotes" into a post of yours, perhaps I should have been more specific. My comments was meant to be "Anti- Hollywood" rather than "Anti-American".
> 
> The opening words of my post were, however "With regards to the film", which I had hoped had made my inference clear.
> 
> I apologise if my intention escaped you.


Thank you Tony for your post, the explanation, and most of all your apology. (Pint)


----------



## John Rogers

McCloggie said:


> _Pressure from Maersk may or may not have been a factor in his decision, we do not know that, a passage saving of 2 days should not enter into any decision regarding the safety of the vessel or crew, nor should the congestion at Mombasa be factored into his decision_
> 
> While I cannot comment on Maersk Line's policies, it seems to me that that the Captain is put in a no-win situation. Maersk head office will, I suspect, determine supposedly safe routes and obviously run to a timetable.
> 
> Yes, it is the Captain's final decision and he is in charge but if the instructions (which will be advice) from Copenhagen are faulty or wrong, what does the Captain do?
> 
> He can go against Maersk policy - and that I do know is a non-starter - or he follows Copenhagen instructions and puts himself in danger.
> 
> If - and it is a big IF - he went against advice, did not question his route, did not ask for clarification or another route then the Captain was wrong. If he followed what Maersk forced him to do then Maersk is wrong - the Captain becomes the fall guy for company incompetency.
> 
> Knowing Maersk and their management systems, I would say that the Captain appears to be wrong in that he did not submit an alternative plan but I say again, I do not know the facts so can only give an opinion.
> 
> McC


Instructions of that type are kind of general in nature and what we call Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) however when you are faced with the immediate danger to your crew and ship, the captain must make fast decisions based on what is happening there and then, not easy to do, and not always right,but its his call.


----------



## funnelstays

I saw the film Captain Philips last evening.
As usual there are a lot of technical and administrative errors made which seems to cast poor light on the officers and crew.
I dont want to spoil anyones enjoyment of the movie by listing the mistakes and omissions,but they did leave Salalah without a pilot and were flying not the courtesey ensign but another national flag or was there anyone at the gangway to greet the old man as he boarded ,so that is as far as l will go.Therefor gents l suggest to see for yourselves and l can understand why the crowd of the Maersk Alabama are a tad pissed off.
For a nation that instigated the ISPS Code in the first place Hollywood once again besmirches the countries reputation.
Pinewood did better 60 plus years ago with San Demetrio London!


----------



## derekhore

But the US Navy Seals did put a lifejacket onto Muse when they finally got him on board the rib!!

Safety first at all times!


----------

