Post facto analysis and fixing of responsibilities for ships hijacked

The report on the collision of the MSC CHITRA and KHALIJA III by DG Shipping of Mumbai can be found here:-

http://www.dgshipping.com/dgship/final/notices/analysis_chitrakhalijia_120411.pdf

As usual, it meanders around the real causes by going into other usual expected "sack the Master" kind of approaches.

It would be interesting to see if DG Shipping does an analysis on itself as well as the manning / recruitment companies in its fold, who provided the manpower for these ships.

And while they are at is, an analysis on the real position vis-a-vis post facto analysis of what the DG Shipping registered companies actually did about things on board ships which were hijacked, where they had sent people?

The typical manning agent who is DG Shipping registered will evade all responsibility, passing the buck to some unknown "owner", but does DG Shipping also have to toe the same line, and if so - why??

Or are they waiting for a DGCA type exposure on the murky going ons within??

Here's an article published by me at MONEYLIFE, referring to the commercial aspects of claims and counter-claims when cargo ships meet accidents.

This one was with reference to the MSC CHITRA / KHALIJA III collision off Mumbai Harbour.

http://www.moneylife.in/article/8/8064.html

It is always sad to see ships collide, break their backs, capsize, and sink, especially if they are so close to port. Here major media make a circus out of what is actually one of the saddest spectacles.

The MSC Chitra / Khalija III collision outside Mumbai Harbour once again brings into focus the sheer neglect of maritime matters on the Indian coast by the various organisations responsible.

(read on)

http://www.moneylife.in/article/8/8064.html