All 52 passengers have been airlifted from the MV Akademik Shokalskiy by a helicopter from the Chinese Icebreaker Xue Long or Snow Dragon. The passengers were ferried to the Australian ice breaker Aurora Australis. Both icebreakers had attempted, but failed, to break through the ice, which has trapped the expedition cruise ship off Antarctica south of Tasmania since Christmas Eve. The 22 Russian crew members will stay aboard the the MV Akademik Shokalskiy to await a shifting in the ice to allow the ship to depart for open water. The ship has been restocked with provisions by the Chinese helicopter which ferried out the passengers.
Old Salt Blog
a virtual port of call for all those who love the sea , hosted by nautical novelist Rick Spilman
From what I gather these “passengers” were a group of scientists with an entourage of media people.
The major reason for this trip was to gather more evidence to push the global warming message.
Theory and reality seem to have collided, head on.
Your facts are someone confused. About half of the passengers on the ship were scientists and the other half were adventure tourists. The purpose of the expedition by the scientists was to follow the path of Douglas Mawson’s Australasian Antarctic Expedition (AAE) of 1911. Yes, they were interested in studying climate change. “Global warming” is a misnomer. The growth in Antarctic sea ice does not contradict global warming trends seen in the Arctic.
Just been reading some comments on the Antarctic assist airlift by the Chinese who did an excellent job. Most of the comments were extremely bitter which is understandable with the change in much of the World towards social equality. It seems that the persons who were passengers in the Russian Expedition ship are regarded as “elderly wealthy privileged people” who when they got into trouble were rescued at taxpayers expense. That tax money was from persons who themselves could not afford to take such a trip. While the area is grey rather than socialist thinking black and white the commenters do have a very valid point. Starting immediately NAUTICAL LOG would like to suggest that an insurance bond must be purchased by any expedition to cover their rescue costs in full should that become necessary. A risk assessment should be completed before proceeding on the expedition. In no way should the costs involved ever fall upon the general public taxpayer of any nation whatsoever.
Good Watch.
There is now a report that the cost of the rescue of the passengers in the MS Akademik Shokalskiy will be borne by the company insurers in compliance with International Convention. It will be interesting to see if after they get safely home any of these passengers will have second thoughts and file suit against the vessel, its Master and the Chief Scientist. These two persons are in Command of the vessel and in Charge of the expedition respectively. In spite of the Chief Scientist wishing to go to certain locations it is up to the vessel Master to assess the ice and wind conditions to make the final decision as to go or not to go. Advance weather reports are the key in plotting probable ice movement which could entrap them as occurred in this case. Remember the expedition ship is not itself an icebreaker merely an ice-strengthened vessel.
Good Watch.
It does raise interesting questions. To their credit, the ship is registered with the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators, which is intended to ensure that all tour ships operating in the region meet all relevant international regulations as well as the specific requirements of the Antarctic Treaty. They have minimum insurance requirements as well. According to a spreadheet that can be downloaded from their website, the Shokalskiy is required to carry $1 billion in pollution coverage and “unlimited” P&I coverage, as well as $10 million in Travel Agent/ Tour Operators Professional Liability Insurance. I have never seen “unlimited” P&I coverage, so I am unsure what that means in practice.
As regards the Marine Insurance issue. P&I Clubs are Mutual that is Co-Operative Insurance which provide unlimited coverage for their Members vessels. As a result there is strict requirement for Membership enrolment. The payout is usually in the range of 70/100 that is $70 payment for every $100 premium payment into the Club.
Good Watch.
Good Watch.
I am familiar with P&I Clubs. Most do cap the total liability. The majority of the P&I coverage specified for the ships registered with the IAATO is capped at $4.25 billion per ship. I am not clear why most ships’ coverage is capped while for others it is unlimited.