My Song fell off a cargo?!

[jack_sparrow]

Good to know. 

What does not make sense to me is that P&M would be careful to examine the insurance policy to be sure it met their requirements before they would lift anything, but not careful enough to examine the cradle itself to be sure it met their requirements before they would set anything down on it.

Doesn't it seem to you that someone or something inserted themselves into the responsibility equation?

Client supplied cradles are subject to P&M approval. However that doesn't necessarily mean responsibility automatically transfers in part or full from client to P&M. Contract will spell this out with any waivers etc.

 

[Miffy]

Client supplied cradles are subject to P&M approval. However that doesn't necessarily mean responsibility automatically transfers in part or full from client to P&M. Contract will spell this out with any waivers etc.

And there's often a significant disconnect between home office and whomever is serving as the person in charge/loading master. 

Sometimes the loading master is so busy he might be stuck on the bridge with paper and VHF for the entire duration of the load and perhaps he incorrectly assumed deck gang foreman would notice something or customer supplied equipment was actually intended for the purpose. 

Bad situation for regular working ppl all around. 

 

[Bill E Goat]

Interesting read from the P&M brochure

Cradling

Peters & May has the highest quality and safest cradles in the industry and we work with the best suppliers to plan and patent new designs. The foundation for our reputation as the industry leader comes from the quality of our loading team and our service levels. Our cradle systems not only support the yacht but protect her against the pressures felt during a long ocean voyage. You can rest assure that your yacht will be suitably cradled and protected for her journey. The cradle is perhaps the most important element of the transportation. It needs to retain a low centre of gravity, be structurally sound, and support the yacht along the length of the keel in as many places as possible.

Lashings

Peters & May creates bespoke lashing plans for each yacht considering the yachts size, weight and load location on the vessel. To reduce possible damage to cleats the pressure is taken between two cleats and athwartship lashing to ensure the yacht is well secured in its cradle. We only use soft lashings close to the yacht to reduce possibility of damage to cleats, bulwarks and fairleads. Soft felt sections are also placed under all areas of the lashings that are in contact with surfaces to prevent abrasions

https://www.petersandmay.com/media/2408/superyacht-transport-brochure.pdf

 

[Fiji Bitter]

Yes, I read all that stuff after that first CEO statement blaming the cradle, and harshly called him on it.

And I have argued that it was not primarily the cradle but the lashing. Anyway, it will be hard to proof it was the cradle's shortcoming, but that the lashing was faulty is there for everyone to see.

P&M is on the hook in any case!

 

[jack_sparrow]

P&M stated it is a client supplied cradle, unknown if responsibilty for design & construction transfered. Cradle  and lashing layout is a single structure. As executed they were not in unison so both elements responsible for failure. Pretty hard to see P&M off the hook when responsible for the latter and approved use of the former.

 

[Gissie]

This one was E6000

Plus a boat. 

 

[Parma]

P&M stated it is a client supplied cradle, unknown if responsibilty for design & construction transfered. Cradle  and lashing layout is a single structure. As executed they were not in unison so both elements responsible for failure. Pretty hard to see P&M off the hook when responsible for the latter and approved use of the former.

...unless the boat's owner or representative took responsibility ("This is the way we insist it be done and yes we will sign your release of liability and take complete responsibility for any damages").

It's just hard for me to imagine the CEO of a shipping company coming out that publicly & directly w/o researching the existence of any waivers etc. He might have been misinformed:?

"A full investigation into the cause of the incident has been launched, however the primary assessment is that the yacht’s cradle (owned and provided by the yacht, warrantied by the yacht for sea transport and assembled by the yacht’s crew) collapsed during the voyage from Palma to Genoa and subsequently resulted in the loss of MY SONG overboard. I will add that this is the initial assessment and is subject to confirmation in due course."

We'll see!

 

[Fiji Bitter]

Plus a boat. 

I see you have no respect for poor Pier, pretty disgraceful.

Even without boat you can still have dinner with the Aga Khan's daughter, half Scottish Zahra.

 

[Zonker]

Yacht owner: we gots us a cradle

P&M: okay dokey. Is it safe for use at sea?

YO: Of course. safe as houses. Chance in a million of it failing etc.

P&M: well if you say so...

If the cradle fails, the lashings go slack of course, so things go rapidly pear shaped.  The 3 other engineers that I showed it to all shuddered that that section with no diagonal bracing - the point where it failed. If the lashings went first, and I don't know was responsible for them, then it's another story. But I bet it was the cradle first.

 

[Fiji Bitter]

Yacht owner: we gots us a cradle

P&M: okay dokey. Is it safe for use at sea?

YO: Of course. safe as houses. Chance in a million of it failing etc.

P&M: well if you say so...

If the cradle fails, the lashings go slack of course, so things go rapidly pear shaped.  The 3 other engineers that I showed it to all shuddered that that section with no diagonal bracing - the point where it failed. If the lashings went first, and I don't know was responsible for them, then it's another story. But I bet it was the cradle first.

Zonker, that may all be true, but I am surprised that you fail to recognize that the lashing was just wrong and irresponsible. Good lasing would have overcome diagonal weakness of the cradle, bad lashing would have the opposite effect.

 

[pulpit]

P&M stated it is a client supplied cradle, unknown if responsibilty for design & construction transfered. Cradle  and lashing layout is a single structure. As executed they were not in unison so both elements responsible for failure. Pretty hard to see P&M off the hook when responsible for the latter and approved use of the former.

Jack, 

I agree with what you are saying. The fact that P&M state that in writing that they must inspect any owner supplied cradles and they must supply paperwork with it as well means that P&M will end up paying the major part if not all of the insurance claim in my view. 

Its going to be the value of the boat the  lawyers will end up fighting over. 

Pulpit

 

[pulpit]

Zonker, that may all be true, but I am surprised that you fail to recognize that the lashing was just wrong and irresponsible. Good lasing would have overcome diagonal weakness of the cradle, bad lashing would have the opposite effect.

Fiji,

If P&M had any concerns about the cradle when loading the boat they still could of added a few braces on the cradle if needed. The simple thing is the photos that most of us have seen show the boat wasn’t lashed correctly to start with. 

Pulpit

 

[Zonker]

The fact that P&M state that in writing that they must inspect any owner supplied cradles 

"Inspect" is NOT the same as "Approve".

And I agree the lashings were too few in number and not far enough outboard. I said so way back when the first picture of it on the ship with lashing in place.

Good lasing would have overcome diagonal weakness of the cradle, bad lashing would have the opposite effect

That's a real maybe. Lashings that are mostly stretchy fabric are not as stiff as steel cradles. So the cradle might fail well before a strong lashing takes additional forces (other than initial pre-tensioning).

 

[MasterRobin]

Yacht owner: we gots us a cradle

P&M: okay dokey. Is it safe for use at sea?

YO: Of course. safe as houses. Chance in a million of it failing etc.

P&M: well if you say so...

If the cradle fails, the lashings go slack of course, so things go rapidly pear shaped.  The 3 other engineers that I showed it to all shuddered that that section with no diagonal bracing - the point where it failed. If the lashings went first, and I don't know was responsible for them, then it's another story. But I bet it was the cradle first.

Would it be ok if my cradle is constructed from cardboard or some other paper based derivative?

 

[MasterRobin]

I don't think I have seen it mentioned since arrival in Palma. But at P&M website a further update on 3 June says...

"Whilst the investigations into the cause of the loss are still on going, it has recently transpired during the investigations that the cradle provided by the yacht owners had undergone an undisclosed and apparently uncertified modification prior to shipment. This modification appears to have resulted in the failure of the yacht’s cradle."

So the cradle used didn't match the design that was supposedly certified for transport use.

 

[jack_sparrow]

That's a real maybe. Lashings that are mostly stretchy fabric are not as stiff as steel cradles. So the cradle might fail well before a strong lashing takes additional forces (other than initial pre-tensioning).

Yep factor of safety down to zip (unless spectra, very doubtful) and bolted connections only wouldn't help. The icing may have still peeled off the cake even if properly lashed.

"Inspect" is NOT the same as "Approve".

Even approval a lawyer's gift from heaven.

 

[jack_sparrow]

the cradle provided by the yacht owners had undergone an undisclosed and apparently uncertified modification prior to shipment. This modification appears to have resulted in the failure of the yacht’s cradle."

So the cradle used didn't match the design that was supposedly certified for transport use.

Bingo the get out jail free card for whoever provided transport insurance. As the owner appears the source of this misleading disclosure for insurance, then this is going to get really expensive for them. Lawyers start your engines.

 

[Navig8tor]

Bingo the get out jail free card for whoever provided transport insurance. As the owner appears the source of this misleading disclosure for insurance, then this is going to get really expensive for them. Lawyers start your engines.

Yep this is gonna get expensive, especially if the cradle  turns out out to be different, Lawyers and engineers the lot.

It will be hard I think to prove the actual failure sequence unless on board cameras perhaps captured the action and these days there are often onboard cameras.

I am inclined to agree with Zonker, likely the cradle first , loosening the straps at which point the whole thing became a rapidly spiralling shit show.

Another aspect of this is the amount of Insurance  premiums PLLP pays for his vessel and his various businesses I am sure he pays big bucks through a broker who will not be taking kindly to anything done by insurers to sneak out from under this in terms of an obligation to their valued client.

Have seen cases like this simply disappear with confidential agreements in place and everyone more or less happy with the outcome and not another word mentioned.

Insurers generally hate long drawn out proceedings with negative impacts to their business or earnings.

 

[jack_sparrow]

Insurers generally hate long drawn out proceedings with negative impacts to their business or earnings.

Any settlement at the end of the day will be guided not by broker or even principle transport insurer (can be owners or P&M organised) but by impact on the individual reinsurance syndicate(s) carrying the can and where as a grouping marine syndicates these days are hurting badly with many either getting out or seeking big premium increases. 

If My Songs boat captain is a contractor (not an employee) and or there is a management entity responsible for My Songs day to day management/expenses and their fingerprints are over the absence of proper cradle certification disclosure and any transport execution in lieu of P&M, they will be looking at their Professional Indemnity Policy(s) very closely where it says Max Sum Insured, exclusions and what they have or have not disclosed as a "special event".

The mess the boat is in will pale in comparison to the mess it creates onshore in various offices.

 

[Navig8tor]

Agree Jack, it will messy.