Case Study

استعرض الموضوع السابق استعرض الموضوع التالي اذهب الى الأسفل

Case Study

مُساهمة من طرف ود فـــــراج في الثلاثاء 24 مايو 2011, 04:40

A bulk carrier of about 70,000 DWT was operating under a time charter for one trip from the West coast of the United States to India, and loaded almost a full cargo of bulk wheat....During the initial stages of the voyage, the vessel encountered severe weather conditions as a result of which there was an ingress of water through the hatch covers which seriously damaged the cargo. Further damage was causeed at the discharge port when sound and wet cargo were mixed. A total of nearly 8,000 mt of cargo was effected, and a claim in excess of one and a half million US dollars was brought against the vessel..........The charterers, who were initialy liable for the damage, claimed an indemnity from the owners, and the dispute was submitted to arbitration....The owners sought to rely on the Hague Rules' perils of the sea defence. However, the charterers alleged that the owners had failed to exercise due diligence to make the patent hatch covers seaworthy.......(to be continued

الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة اذهب الى الأسفل

Consideration of relevant evidence

مُساهمة من طرف ود فـــــراج في الثلاثاء 24 مايو 2011, 15:54

In support of their arguments that the weather encountered by the vessel had been severe the owners submitted the vessel's log books as well as a video taken by the master during the voyage. The log book entries showed that from an early stage in the voyage, the vessel encountered winds of force 6 to 7 from the South East with accompanying rough seas, increasing in strength over the following two days to force 8. the vessel then encountered force 9 winds from the West South West with heavy seas causing the vessel to pitch and roll and ship seas. In the next two days the worst weather was recorded with westerly winds of force 9 to 11 and huge waves. At this stage the vessel had to heave to for about 24 hours and eventually headed south to get away from the violent weather. During this period the vessel suffered damage and well-secured drums of lubricant at the stern were carried away. The winds slowly abated to below force 7 during the following two to three day period.......(to be continued

الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة اذهب الى الأسفل

رد: Case Study

مُساهمة من طرف ود فـــــراج في الخميس 26 مايو 2011, 04:14

The evidence contained in the log books was supported by a twenty minute vedio film taken by the master during the voyage. The arbitrators found that the film did not demonstrate that the weather had been as ferocious as recorded in the log book, but conceded that it was not possible to film during the worst of the weather and that the film would not show the full magnitude of the high seas and swell. The arbitrators were also impressed by the oral evidance from the master of the vessel who they found an honest and reliable witness, corroborating evidance from another vessel in the area during the same time as the subject vessel, the extent of damage suffered by the vessel and the carring away of the drums of lubricant......

الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة اذهب الى الأسفل

رد: Case Study

مُساهمة من طرف ود فـــــراج في الخميس 26 مايو 2011, 17:25

Before the owners could invoke the perils of the sea defence they had to demonstrate that they had exercised due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy before the voyage commenced. The owners submitted evidence of the maintenance of the vessel prior to the voyage as well as contemporaneous evidence demonstrating the condition of the hatch covers
The vessel had been in dry-dock one month perior to the voyage and had undergone general repairs including repairs to the hatch coamings. At this time hatchways and closing appliances were inspected by class serveyors and were found to be in good condition. A letter from the classification society stated the hose testing of the hatch covers was carried out with satisfactory results and that the serveyor was satisfied with the water tightness of the hatch covers. The master had stated during his testimony before the arbitrators that the serveyor had not only watched the hose testing on the hatch covers, but also went down into each hatch after the test in order to ensure that there were no leakages. A ballast voyage was then undertaken between the dry-dock port and the first load port on the chartered voyage

الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة اذهب الى الأسفل

رد: Case Study

مُساهمة من طرف عبد الرحمن الزين2 في الجمعة 27 مايو 2011, 04:35

العزيز محمد...متابعين واصل
عبد الرحمن

الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة اذهب الى الأسفل

رد: Case Study

مُساهمة من طرف ود فـــــراج في الجمعة 27 مايو 2011, 06:21

عمنا الكابتن عبدالرحمن ...متعك الله بالصحة و صرف عنك كل شر....نواصل بأذن الله

الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة اذهب الى الأسفل

رد: Case Study

مُساهمة من طرف ود فـــــراج في الجمعة 27 مايو 2011, 06:35

The owners also submitted contemporaneous evidence. The reports of three independent surveyors, who examined the hatch covers at the discharge port, confirmed their good order and condition. In addition, the surveyors' reports showed that there was salt water damage to all the hatches. If there had been salt water damage to only some of the hatches, the arbitrators may have drawn adverse inference about the seaworthiness of these hatches. Finally, the video film taken by the master demonstrate that the vessel on the whole looked well maintained and the hatch covers, in particular, appeared to be in good condition

الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة اذهب الى الأسفل

Outcome

مُساهمة من طرف ود فـــــراج في الجمعة 27 مايو 2011, 07:06

The arbitrators held that if the owners had exerciseed due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy they could successfully rely on the perils of the sea defence because the vessel had encountered severe weather even though the weather was not entirely unexpected or unusual. The arbitrators stated that if this was not correct the defence would never apply to areas like the North Atlantic or North Pasific where severe weather is often encountered in the winter.....The arbitrators found that the evidence suggested that the owners had exercised due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy before the vessel sailed from the first load port. They also commented that they had no reason to believe that the hatch covers were not properly secured on the completion of loading......The arbitrators further stated that in certain circumstances well maintained hatch covers will flex in periods of severe weather and permit the ingress of sea water. Therefore, provided owners had exercised due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy, they could avoid liability by relying on the perils of the sea defence.........Although it is very difficult to rely on a heavy weather defence, the arbitrators in the present case were impressed by the well kept log book and the video film.......Although not every vessel will have a video camera on board, a series of still photographs could also be of great evidential value in demonstrate bad weather and the condition of the vessel........fin

الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة اذهب الى الأسفل

Case Study

مُساهمة من طرف ود فـــــراج في الأحد 29 مايو 2011, 20:36

A ro-ro passenger vessel was engaged on a regular service across the Channel between England and France.......On the night in question the wind was increasing to force 6 / 7 from the South West and a large beam swell was being experienced. The vessel did have stabilisers but was still rolling and pitching moderately. Many of the passengers, and some of the crew, were suffering from sea-sickness and had difficulty walking around the vessel. An announcement had been made to encourage passengers to find a seat and to remain seated.......A self service cafe was open on board. A youth purchased a sparkling drink, with ice-cubes, but then lost his balance and spilt the drink onto a linoleum type floor surface of the cafe........An elder gentleman, who was making his way to the cafe cash desk, slipped on the spilt drink/ ice and fell heavily. A duty officer was called to the scene and rendered first aid to the elderly gentleman..........to be continued

الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة اذهب الى الأسفل

Consideration of relevant evidence

مُساهمة من طرف ود فـــــراج في الأحد 29 مايو 2011, 23:30

The cafe attendant and two eye witnesses were interviewed. It became apparent that the cafe attendant had been on her on looking after the till in the cafe-she subsequently confessed that she (did not feel at all well) with the motion of the ship. She had seen the youth spill the drink and had called the duty officer to arrange for someone to come and clean up and put up a warning sign. Before that could be arranged the elderly gentleman had slipped and fallen.........Two eye witnesses stated that they had seen the elderly gentleman struggling to make his way to the cafe and had tried to encourage him to sit down. They saw him slip and fall........The duty officer took relevant details from the elderly gentleman following the administering of the first aid

الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة اذهب الى الأسفل

Outcome

مُساهمة من طرف ود فـــــراج في الأحد 29 مايو 2011, 23:54

The elderly gentleman was bruised and shaken but not seriously injured. Who ever he was encouraged to have a doctor to check him over.......The training of the duty officer was such that during the administering of the first aid he showed care and concern towards the passenger. It was probably this caring attitude which helped defused a potentially aggressive situation developing.......There was nothing further heard from the elderly gentleman
Following an anlysis of the accident on board it was rcognised that management of the situation which lead to the accident, and what followed immediately afterwards could be improved. The cafe attendant should have ensured that someone else was made aware of her partial incapacity as far as her sea-sickness was concerned. It was recognised that the cafe attendant should not have been left alone, particularly in adverse weather, and it was questioned weather there may be occasions when the cafe should be shut down completely in very rough weather

الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة اذهب الى الأسفل

Case Study....3

مُساهمة من طرف ود فـــــراج في الأربعاء 01 يونيو 2011, 21:20

At 0600 hrs, on the day of the incident, the vessel was proceeding on her passage throught the Patagonian Channel. Everything was proceeding smoothly. The master was in his cabin resting, he had left night orders to the effect that he should be called if the Officer of the Watch was in doubt about anything or otherwise needed the master. The master was intending to return to the bridge at about 0800 hrs when the ship would be transiting a particularly difficult part of the Channel. On the bridge was the chief officer, one of the two local pilot ( the second pilot was also resting), a helmsman and the cadet officer/ lookout. During the course of a few short minutes a whole series of mistakes were to happen.....A major alteration of course was being approached. The pilot went to mark the ship's position on the chart and to transfer the position onto the next chart. As he did that he realised that the latitude and longitude positions did not coincide with the position of adjacent land and islands.....in fact there was a difference of one mile. There is nothing particularly unusual about this sort of thing happening....often the surveyors on which original charts had been drawn took place many years before and precise positions may have been difficult. However this was sufficient to distract the pilot's attention for a few minutes. The chief officer realised that the alteration position was being approached out, presumably, by this time had developed a certain amount of cnfidence in the pilot and had assumed, wrongly, that the pilot must have been delaying the commencement of the turn on account of some local current ot similar. The cadet / lookout saw a light open (become visible) but did not report this. In fact this was the light that should have indicate to the pilot when he should turn. By the time the pilot realised that he had over-short the alteration position the vessel was closing quite rapidly on an island dead ahead. If an attempt was made to alter course at that stage then there would be a serious risk of ripping the side out of the ship which could result in loss of life or personal injuries, an explosion/ fire, pollution, loss of cargo and possibly loss of the ship. Instead the correct course of action was taken, apperently without panic; as much speed as possible was taken off the vessel and she was driven straight onto the island. The greatest strength in the ship is in her bows where there are stiffening frames plus a collision bulkahead.........The vessel ran aground at a speed of about six knots. No one was injured, there was no explosion or fire, there was no pollution or loss of cargo, there was damage to the ship structure at the forward end and a salvage tug had to be engaged which was able to safety pull the vessel off the island with no further loss or damage

الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة اذهب الى الأسفل

The basis of the claim

مُساهمة من طرف ود فـــــراج في الجمعة 03 يونيو 2011, 02:52

The cargo owners / subrogated underwriters were claiming for a recovery of their conribution towards the salvage expenses incurred in the refloating operation
The basic argument was that there had been a breach of the contract of carriage in that the ship was unseaworthy, and the ship operators had failed to exercised due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy
Specifically they argued that there were many factors which conributed towards that unseaworthiness, including
(1) No proper bridge team management
(2) No proper system for instructing crew in navigation in confined waters
(3) No proper passage plan for that part of the voyage during which the incident occurred
(4) The vessel was not equipped with adequate charts
(5) The echo sounder was defective
.........to be continued

الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة اذهب الى الأسفل

رد: Case Study

مُساهمة من طرف ود فـــــراج في السبت 04 يونيو 2011, 17:34

[left]If the cargo claimants were successful with their arguments they would be intitled to recover their contribution to the general average and salvage expenses.
The case was heard before the Admiralty Judge-the Honouerable Mr. Justice Steel a very experienced lawyer and judge in shipping related matters. It is interesting to note that, in his judgement, the judge was clearly very critical of the way in which the claimants had set out their claim and their allegations. On the whole they were unspecific and un substantiated.
The judge was also very critical of the expert witness that the claimants had produced to comment specifically on the navigation systems and practices on board (Terpo). Basically the judge considered the navigation expert to "Lack realism". This is actually a very interesting, important and enlightened observation on the part of the judge. The expert witness put forward a case for almost absolute perfection-Justice Steel- made it clear that neither he, nor the court, nor ISM expects perfection-but best practise will be expected. It again comes back to the old problem of reasonableness and what might be reasonable within the context of this particular case

الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة اذهب الى الأسفل

Case Study.....4

مُساهمة من طرف ود فـــــراج في الأربعاء 08 يونيو 2011, 13:31

A ro-ro / lo-lo ferry was alongside overnight prior to loading. The chief officer gave instructions that the main deck and lower hold were to be washed in accordance with the appropriate work order. When the main deck wash down was completed, the three main deck ramps were lowered in preparation for washing the hold. An AB then went to the main deck platform, which was wet, to disconnect the hose and transfer it to the hold position. Whilst out of sight, the AB fell backwards onto a ramp five metres below

Consideration of relevant evidence
There was no resk assessment undertaken prior to commencing the wash down. The wash down water was supplied from a connection that could only be accessed via an unprotected 1 metre wide plat form adjacent to the main deck ramp and ship's side. A personnel barrier was located at each end of the platform. When the ramp was in the 'down' position, there was a 5 metre drop from the platform
The AB who had gone to disconnect the hose and transfer it to the hold position did not follow the correct procedure. The normal process was to shut the valve, releaving the pressure at the hose end; this then allowed the hose to be disconnected. However, it appears that the pressure was not releaved. While attempting to disconnect the hose, the isolating valve fractured and the AB fell backwards

Outcome
He survived the fall, but suffered two broken wrists and a broken leg. The fleet was reminded of the importance of conducting a risk assessment and generally implementing safe working practices and following correct procedures

الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة اذهب الى الأسفل

Case Study.....5

مُساهمة من طرف ود فـــــراج في الخميس 23 يونيو 2011, 17:01

A 12,000 ton general cargo vessel was involved in a liner service from Canada to a number of Caribbean Islands. The cargoes included traditional general cargo of packaged and boxed goods along with some containerised cargo
It was normal practice for the ship to provide fresh drinking water for the stevedore labour force at the caribbean Islands
Whilst discharging at one of the Islands many of the stevedores suddenly developed severe diarrhoea. The stevedore foreman lodged a formal complaint with the captain of the ship and the local Port Health Officer alleging that the drinking water was contaminated
Delays occurred to the ship whilst the stevedores tidied themselves up and recovered sufficiently to return to discharging the cargo

Consideration of relevant evidence
Samples of the drinking water were analysed at a local laboratory and found to be pure
On checking the cargo hold where the affected stevedores had been working a number of boxes were found to have been broached and the content removed. From the discarded wrappers found in the adjacent area it became apparent that the content was laxative chocolate. It became apparrent that the stevedores had eaten significant quantities of the chocolate not realising that it was laxative

Outcome
The circumstantial evidence was sufficient to satisfy the stevedore foreman and the port health authorities that the problems experienced by the stevedores were of their own making. A formal letter of protest was subsequently sent to the stevedore Company on account of the stevedores pilfering the cargo

الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة اذهب الى الأسفل

رد: Case Study

مُساهمة من طرف عبد الرحمن الزين2 في الجمعة 24 يونيو 2011, 01:08

case ظريف جدا ابننا محمد احمد..في الاخر جابت ليها تهمة سرقة كمان....
تذكرت نكتة ظريفه حكاها لنا ذات مرة القبطان صلاح شرقاوي...قد يكون الكثير قد سمع بها ولكنها تضحكني وفي نفس الوقت تدل علي عظمة ومدي ذكاء ابناء الشرق العزيز..عمال الميناء....


ادروب يحاول تخطي بوابة التفتيش حاملا جردلا من الزنك مملؤ بالتراب....
يوقفه العسكري..ادروب ده شنو..
تراب عشان الجنينه بتاعتي....
علي انا..يقولها العسكري ويبدا البحث داخل الجردل عن اشياء بين طيات التراب ولا يجد شيئا ويسمح لادروب بالمرور...
يكرر ادروب نفس العملية لاسبوع..وبعد اسبوع يمر ادروب من البوابة خاو الوفاض....

العسكري لادروب...شنو خلاص ما داير تراب لجنينتك

ادروب يرد بكل برود..ابدا بس اصلو الباخرة الكانت شاحنة جرادل سافرت....

قلنا نحاول نكسر الجدية شوية

معزتي

الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة اذهب الى الأسفل

رد: Case Study

مُساهمة من طرف ود فـــــراج في الجمعة 24 يونيو 2011, 04:11

عمنا الكابتن عبدالرحمن....عافاك الله من البلاء
نحن في امس الحوجة الي الأستماع الي تجاربكم الزاخرة بالكثير.....ياريت تجود لينا بالحكي والقصص البحرية مثل المصاعب التي واجهتك اثناء عملك في البحر ....؟؟ وأوقات الأحساس بالنجاة من الخطر ....كيف كانت ..؟؟ والتعامل مع الطاقم متعدد الجنسيات أو الجنسية الواحدة....؟؟؟ وتجربتكم الشخصية في ادارة السفينة...؟؟ وارجو ان تعذرني في مسألة الجدية فيبدو انها جينية بحتة...مع فائق الأحترام والتقدير

الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة اذهب الى الأسفل

Case Study.....6

مُساهمة من طرف ود فـــــراج في الثلاثاء 19 يوليو 2011, 05:26

A 6,000 gt chemical tanker was fully loaded with a cargo of acid which was being transported between two countries in Northern Europe. The total voyage, including loading, sea passage and discharge lasted a little over 72 hrs

whilst on passage to the discharge port, at approximately 0400 hrs, the vessel ran onto rocks close offshore. The hull was seriously broached and almost all the acid cargo was lost into the sea

An investigation subsequently revealed that the second mate, who had been alone on the bridge, had fallen sleep

Consideration of relevant evidence
The investigation focused initially on the passage plan and navigation / bridge procedures. The passage plan appeared to be in order and the written procedures with regard to navigation and bridge management were reasonable

However, it became apparent that the procedures were not being followed on board the ship and evidence could not be produced to show that they had ever been followed

The investigation turned to explore manning levels, hours of work and hours of rest, not only of the second mate but also of the master and other officers and crew. Whilst the records indicated that the mandatory minimum hours of rest were being taken by those on board, it was possible to demonstrate from other contemporaneous evidence that excessive hours were being worked and that the records had been falsified

Outcome
It was concluded that the second mate was suffering from extreme tiredness and fatique due to working excessive hours. He was not in a suitable condition to be in charge of a bridge watch. Contarary to procedures the second mate had stood part of the watch alone, the look out having been dispatched to undertake other duties

Financial compensation had to be paid to local fishermen as well as local authorities and various tourist related claimants who had suffered losses directly as a result of the incident

The ship operator was fined $ 250,000. The master and the second mate subsequently had their Certificates of Competency suspended

الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة اذهب الى الأسفل

استعرض الموضوع السابق استعرض الموضوع التالي الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة

- مواضيع مماثلة

 
صلاحيات هذا المنتدى:
لاتستطيع الرد على المواضيع في هذا المنتدى