Just got an anonymous tip that the MV Liquid Velvet, which was captured by Somali pirates yesterday, had an unarmed, 1-man Australian security force on board. 22 crew including the embarked Australian, are now in the hands of Somali terrorists.
It’s not a question of being safe or not being safe.It a question of higher risk or lower risk. BMP, hoses, zia-zag maneuvers and so forth reduce risk as does having an unarmed security guard aboard. When I transit the HoA area with armed security I still use BMP in addition to the armed guards.
It’s only a matter of time before a ship with armed security gets taken. According to the article it took the armed guards 30 minutes to drive off the pirates. In some cases ships with armed guards are becoming lax and some security companies are of very low quality.
K.C.
EDIT: The article I am referring to is link provided in NAUTICART
[QUOTE=Rob Almeida;57293]Just got an anonymous tip that the MV Liquid Velvet, which was captured by Somali pirates yesterday, had an unarmed, 1-man Australian security force on board. 22 crew including the embarked Australian, are now in the hands of Somali terrorists.[/QUOTE]
Pirates not withstanding…I dream of being master of a vessel named “LIQUID VELVET” or better yet “BLACK VELVET”!
Your something else
“they assumed that the unarmed Australian “advisor” they hired could defend the ship against pirates with his bare hand”
The author is making very flawed assumption here. An advisor’s objective is to get the crew into the citadel in a timely manner and not as he says to defend the vessel with his bare hands. Making sure that the watch is doing what they need to to detect the threat early and getting everyone in the citadel in a timely manner is critical when armed guards are not available. By all reports he accomplished the objective. It is likely that the citadel was not properly constructed and/or outfitted thereby allowing the pirates to gain entry.
I’m certainly not criticizing the Australian advisor. I’m being critical of the shipowner’s decision to put the crew in harms way without a sufficient means (ie. weapons and trained security) to protect the vessel. A citadel is only one part of a good defense against piracy.
I’m not critisizing the Austalian advisor either, but apparently speaking crossly to the pirates is an ineffective deterrent when dealing with armed pirates. His objective was not met as the ship and crew are now taken hostage. The owners are negligent for not having an armed security team aboard. Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
I can hear it now: “STOP, or I will tell you to STOP again!”
Seriously, I hope the advisor and the crew come out of this okay!
[QUOTE=Retired CG MCPO;57335]I can hear it now: “STOP, or I will tell you to STOP again!”
Seriously, I hope the advisor and the crew come out of this okay![/QUOTE]
And this time I mean it!
The wording in a news item about this incident is interesting [I]“AFP reports that alleged Somali pirates have boarded and hijacked Greek chemical tanker, the MT Liquid Velvet, along with its 22 crewmembers, taking it to a hideout in northern Somalia.”[/I]
The ship was boarded, captured, hijacked, and taken to a “hideout.” I doubt the crew willingly participated in this adventure and chose to spend time at a northern Somalia seaside resort so why would anyone call the perpetrators of this crime “alleged” pirates. What more do they have to do to be called what they are?
Maybe the politically correct and bizarre regard for the labels attached to these murderers helps to explain why this problem still exists. We are more concerned about being polite than we are about the welfare of ships’ crews and the concept of innocent passage through international waters.
[QUOTE=Steamer;57345]The wording in a news item about this incident is interesting
Maybe the politically correct and bizarre regard for the labels attached to these murderers helps to explain why this problem still exists. We are more concerned about being polite than we are about the welfare of ships’ crews and the concept of innocent passage through international waters.[/QUOTE]
I suppose it is possible that shipowners are more worried about hurt feelings then they are about the bottom line. However the last time I talked to the owners rep the discussion focused on cost per day, the subject of appearing to be political correct or avoiding hurt feelings never came up.
Any discussions about this subject has to start with two assumptions:.
- Ship owners do not care about the crews.
- Ship owners do care about profits and losses.
You can parse the news reports looking for signs of political correctness but I think better approach would be to look at the cost of insurance versus the daily cost of an armed security team.
K.C.
Sorry to hear this, I mainly work within the SAR industry, but having read some of the statements it sounds a tad mad that someone would go as a security officer “unarmed” ?? It’s like me going out into a force 9 with no MF/VHF and crew to look for a casualty. Is it me?
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;57349]I suppose it is possible that shipowners are more worried about hurt feelings then they are about the bottom line. However the last time I talked to the owners rep the discussion focused on cost per day, the subject of appearing to be political correct or avoiding hurt feelings never came up.[/QUOTE]
Since the news report wasn’t written by or for shipowners, what owners think is irrelevant to this conversation.
The point I was trying to make is that the organizations and institutions that have the power to eliminate piracy within a few weeks appear to more interested in not offending anyone than they are in providing ship owners and crews with the resources and legal protection needed to respond in a manner that will solve this “alleged” problem in short order.
But, to address your comments about shipowners, very few of us have any illusions (or should I say delusions) about their primary interest. If shipowners, underwriters, or anyone else with the means to end this lunacy lost money because of it, there would be no pirates beyond the DC beltway.
[QUOTE=pokoesteve;57350] Is it me?[/QUOTE]
No, it is the fear of any government or maritime organization to stand up to the issue and allow crews to defend themselves. It is based on the fact that even after a pirate group has siezed a ship and taken its crew to their lair, they are still described as “alleged” pirates.
This is the end result of “catch and release” and politicians who have absolutely nothing to lose. Perhaps if there were a law that required a politician’s wife, son, daughter, or the politician himself from the flag state to sail on each vessel trading in the Horn of Africa the problem would go away in a hurry. So far, the abysmal failure to end this outrage leads to the conclusion that those who are not at risk are making too much money from the practice to support an end to it.
[QUOTE=Steamer;57355]No, it is the fear of any government or maritime organization to stand up to the issue and allow crews to defend themselves. It is based on the fact that even after a pirate group has siezed a ship and taken its crew to their lair, they are still described as “alleged” pirates. .[/QUOTE]
I see your point but in this case I don’t think it is being overly pedantic to point out the article says “alleged Somali pirates” not “alleged pirates”, I don’t think there is much question that they are pirates, in fact later in the article it calls them that. I do understand that is not your larger point.
I think that in many cases assumptions are being made regarding the piracy problem. For example the cut and release policy. What percentage of pirates do you think would have to be apprehended or killed to reduce the problem to acceptable levels and how much harm to innocents is politically acceptable? Do you think that if 5% of pirates are shot it would be enough? Or would a higher number be required? The next question of course is can this level be achieved?
My point is that there are implicit assumptions being made here and I am not convinced that they would hold up at sea.
K.c.
Who knows what a good percentage is, let them work that out for themselves, but 5 percent is a good start.
When enough of the pirate population witnesses their buddies vanish in a cloud of spray or a fireball they might start to reconsider their career choice. The only ones you have to kill are the ones trying to board your ship. The others will get the message.
As far as “catch and release” goes, if the military doesn’t see them actually in the act but all the evidence points to piracy they don’t have to waste taxpayer money following them around, escorting them to shore, or ammunition to kill them. Just leave their boat with exactly enough fuel and water to reach the nearest point of land and let them figure out what to do next.
[QUOTE=Steamer;57361]
When enough of the pirate population witnesses their buddies vanish in a cloud of spray or a fireball they might start to reconsider their career choice. The only ones you have to kill are the ones trying to board your ship. The others will get the message.[/QUOTE]
If, when a boat returns without success, each pirate just goes home then maybe so, but if the routine is to shoot one crew, give them some more ammo and gas force a new crew member on board at gun point and send them back out then no. How effective do you think the threat of the death penalty works for suicide bombers?
My point is we don’t know what the dynamics are here, thinking they will stop if a few get killed may or may not be correct. What we’ve seen so far is killing a few doesn’t make a dent.
K.C.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;57369]How effective do you think the threat of the death penalty works for suicide bombers?[/QUOTE]
Who cares? If our troops were able to recognize suicide bombers as easily as a blind monkey can recognize a pirate there would be a lot fewer successful suicide bombings.
Their motivation is irrelevant, their personal feelings about being a pirate are even less relevant. When they know that hanging around the docks inevitably leads to a fatal conclusion they wouldn’t be pirates or victims of their own compatriots.
It is not the job of a security team or the military to understand what motivates pirates. They simply need to given the means to eradicate the threat.
The info is wrong , the security advisor is Greek, Australian is the security agency based on Athens ,