Apparently she's old and tired (built 1969 as a arctic/antarctic research ship) and is not "in good order", including WT doors which are apparently inoperable, and you wonder why they're going to lose a big ship to a hole you could plug with an old kapok life jacket? Low budget third world adventure tours strikes again!
Methinks I smell a rat here. The MCA asserted that the faults were rectified yet you supposedly have a fist sized hole which put the ship on the bottom. It makes me wonder what else was wrong that the inspectors either didn't catch or which was neglected after it was supposedly made right.
The investigation into this fiasco is going to be most entertaining for those of us on the outside looking in. I don't think it's going to be so amusing for those who will ultimately be held accountable for all this.
It reminds me of when the bankrupt 'Premiere Cruise Line' liner 'Seabreeze' sank off the cost of VA (while manned by a skeleton crew) in 2000. I don't think the cause of her sinking was ever fully determined, and odd that she went down right after the bank seized the bankrupt company's assets..Pity, I sailed her in 1999, and the Seabreeze was a lovely ship....Now she sleeps with the fishes...
The difference here is that The Explorer was involved in momney making trade wereas the Seabreeze wasn't making anyone a dime. Barratry in this case is a bit of a stretch if only because there are less risky ways of disposing of an old ship like this.
I note that the MS Explorer had been "flagged-out" to a third world country, and wonder if this could have had anything to do with the fact that the vessel apparently five "deficiencies" when inspected in the UK - including problems with a watertight door, lifeboat maintenance problems and missing search and rescue plans (according to a report on Lloyds' website).
>>Maybe some of those who blamed Titanic's material will think twice now and understand just how hard ice is before condemning the ship.<<
I'm not so sure that the hardness of ice is the issue. It still has only 10% of the tinsile strength of steel. What matters here is that it was still enough to sink the ship.
At this point, it may be wise for us to tread very cautiously here. All we know is what was reported in the press and we have no way of knowing how much of it is an accurate reflection of reality. That claim that the hole was only the size of a fist for example. If only one watertight compartment was in open communication with the sea, that ship should still be afloat and she's not.
That makes me wonder what other discrepancies there were and whether or not some were genuinely rectified. Either way, there is in my opinion, way more to this story then what's making it into the media.
James, Yes, I read that the problems that had been identified during an inspection in Greenock in May had been rectified, but I also read somewhere that Chilean port inspectors had found problems (albeit minor ones). My main point is, why should a Canadian ship have been sailing under a Liberian flag with a largely third world crew? Why not sail under the Canadian flag?