Additional updates on the RAK CARRIER (IMO 8106745)

Lloyds's Class IMO No. 8106745, vessel's previous name SUNNY CARRIER

http://www.lr.org/Images/CLASS%20EXEC%20MINUTES%20-%2024.11.2010_tcm155-203840.pdf


""Class Withdrawn Owners Request 10th November 2010. TRANSFER OF CLASS OUT TO PANAMA MARITIME SERVICES.""

++

Rumanian P&I Club, no response, no local rep in Mumbai.

+++

From a television interview, the Romanian Chief Officer claimed that the ship had arrived "off Mumbai" as early as the 12th or 16th of July, and then hung around there, took bunkers and stores, and was awaiting submersible pumps. Master did not apprise port or cargo receivers of the situation, it appears.

http://www1.timesnow.tv/Engineered-to-sink-in-Indian-waters/articleshow/4380660.cms

+++

A partial list of DGS circulars on the subject. Shall be interesting to know how the file for this ship moved at DGS - if it hasn't gone adrift or worse like the ship itself!!

 

http://www.dgshipping.com/charter.htm

 

 

http://www.dgshipping.com/dgship/final/notices/sdcir2_02.htm

(This notice only has vanished, it deals with the master regulations to be followed when anybody wants to charter any foreign flag vessel)

 

http://www.dgshipping.com/dgship/final/notices/sdcir3_05.htm

reference to above rules

 

http://www.dgshipping.com/dgship/final/notices/sdcir4_06.htm

 

http://www.dgshipping.com/dgship/final/notices/sdcir1_2008.htm

(the less than 25 years circular . . . )

 

http://www.dgshipping.com/dgship/final/notices/sdnote.htm

(master page for rules under shipping development . . . )

 

+++

More article on the subject with some loadport juicy information coming soon . . .

the mystery of the RAK Carrier - where was she for 40 days?

http://moneylife.in/article/the-mystery-of-the-rak-carrier-where-was-she-for-the-past-40-days/18662.html

The mystery of the RAK Carrier: Where was she for the past 40 days?
August 04, 2011 03:49 PM | 
Veeresh Malik

At 8-9 knots, sailing time from Singapore to Mumbai would not exceed 10 days. The RAK Carrier, now sinking off Mumbai, took 40. Where was she in between?

Time was not too long ago, a ship would go adrift or get stranded in and around Mumbai Port about once every two years, and would then become the focus of all discussion at the Seaman's Club. Now it appears to be a weekly affair, like the "specials" on sale in the Irani Hotel next door, and everybody knows that the special is simply what was not moving so had to be flogged.

The RAK Carrier, an Indonesian flag bulk carrier, is one more example.

About 26 years old, with a history as long as that of any history-sheeter, she sailed out of Singapore on or around the 2nd of May 2011, ostensibly towards Indonesia to load coal for Dahej in Gujarat. She then reappeared off Singapore on the 20th of June 2011, ostensibly loaded, and then sat patiently outside Singapore till the 24th of June. She then sailed out towards India through the Malacca Straits, making good about 8-9 knots, giving an ETA (expected time of arrival) Dahej of 7th of July 2011.

So far so good, but then suddenly on the midnight of 24/25 June 2011, all position reporting seems to have stopped from her AIS (Automatic Identification Signal), including most surprisingly no reports when passing Colombo or making landfall off India, until she arrived off the Port of Mumbai almost a month behind schedule. Down by head, and certainly looking like she was about to go under, conveniently near the only port in India where rescue would not be too much of a problem.

For all we know, the Master decided to go on a short tour of the Indian Ocean through most of the month of July 2011, while the cargo receivers in Dahej waited patiently for their coal. Or something happened to the cargo en route, and after that, it became a very brilliant insurance claim. But why does a ship take almost 40 days to come from Singapore to Mumbai, is the question which people should be asking, and also doing a quick check on what's really in those cargo-holds.

Incidentally, the value of the cargo would have been many times the value of the ship, especially in these depressed days. And the coal would find ready buyers anywhere in the world. But that's unfair to the seafarers who probably fought bad monsoon seas before making it to off Mumbai, too.

However, it is not unknown for ships to go elsewhere, offload cargo, fill holds with ballast water, and then go under. Shipping records are full of such cases.

For example, in the days when trade with a particular African country was "banned", ships would often load oil for, say, West Europe. Along the way, the cargo would be quietly unloaded at a port in that African country, and then the ship and ship-owners would go through all sorts of manipulations to close the voyage. In one glorious case, when a particular ship—on her last legs anyway—was going to be scuttled, the ship sent out a sinking signal and asked for help, and the rescuers found everybody dressed in formals with their suitcases neatly packed.

We are not saying that the RAK Carrier is an elaborate insurance scam. Far from it.

We have said it before, and we say it again—it requires a very simple notice to mariners issued by the DG Shipping in Mumbai addressed to all ships globally when they come anywhere near Indian waters—especially those calling Indian ports. All ships coming into Indian territorial waters must establish identity and purposes. All overage ships (those over 15 years old as per marine conventions) must in addition also provide full details of any and every possible issue including cargo, insurance cover, class and adherence to every possible aspect that makes her seaworthy.

Why would the DG Shipping not do it? This is unknown, but in their 'PAVITra WISDOM', maybe they will do it now?

Information Sources:

1) Information on RAK CARRIER movements sourced from:
 http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/datasheet.aspx?datasource=ITINERARIES&MMSI=351810000

2) Information on possible insurance issues—sourced from the grapevine.

(PS: In addition, I just saw some TV clips of the sailors from this ship. They seem to be interestingly very calm and collected. In addition, it appears as though they had the time to save and get along stuff like their laptops and stereos as well as all their documents. This is something strange, the Indian authorities need to hold these seafarers and question them to find out what happened).

___

Originally published at MoneyLife

The mv PAVIT - yet another ship founders off Mumbai, a derelict this time!

http://www.moneylife.in/article/the-pavitmdashyet-another-attempt-to-hit-mumbai/18556.html

The Pavit—yet another attempt to hit Mumbai?
August 01, 2011 03:29 PM |
Veeresh Malik

 

The grounding of the Pavit off the coast of Mumbai cannot be, once again, attributed to bad weather and coincidence. It is amply clear that something is afoot, and that our security agencies are absolutely clueless—despite all the big talk—about what is happening right off our jetties and wharfs. Somebody or something is trying to do more than play marbles or video games with dead ships let loose near the city

What exactly is happening, why and how are derelict ships with suspicious antecedents drifting to Mumbai's shores, so frequently; and more importantly, what can be done about it?

The media is full of reports about how yet another ship is gracing the Mumbai coastline, and reports seem to centre around how a small tanker, the MV Pavit, with a lower freeboard, does not look as impressive as a not-so-large container ship with high cubics and taller freeboard. There is the usual reportage, the expected pass-the-buck kind of response, and the truth of course lies somewhere else. Here are some facts.

# About a month ago, towards the end of June 2011/early July 2011, the Pavit, (IMO number 9016636) with a complement of 13 Indians on board, on a voyage from the Persian Gulf towards Somalia, reported engine trouble and sought assistance after being adrift for three days. Read an account of the rescue operation in the report titled, (Fleet Air Arm helicopter rescues seamen off Oman.)

# The seafarers were transferred to another merchant ship, the Jag Pushpa, and repatriated to India. The Pavit was apparently left to her fate in the waters of the Arabian Sea. There are rumours that the Pavit was acting as a supplier of marine fuel to Somalia to facilitate piracy activity, and that this was one of the reasons why the crew chose to abandon the ship. Why the owner, or the insurers, did not send one of the many ocean-going rescue tugs to tow the ship back is not known.

# The Pavit, in all appearances, is a well-maintained ship. It is not old, either, or decrepit. If an engine failure for three days in mid-ocean meant seafarers started abandoning ships, then probably a large percentage of the world's fleet would have been derelict by now. The simple fact that the Pavit after she was abandoned did not sink, means that there was some intervention by somebody to ensure that she stayed afloat. This was likely by way of a tow as well as some basic minimal repairs in the reported leakage from the stern gland. Incidentally, stern glands leak all the time, and repairing them while at sea is a very normal and fairly simple practice.

# This time of the year, winds and currents do not push ships southwards down from the Omani coast towards India. Quite the opposite, actually, as any basic knowledge of what happens during the south-west monsoon will reveal. Even if it has drifted due to some freak weather, the prevailing tendency would have been to move towards the Gulf of Kutch. To reach without any assistance the coast of Mumbai is absolutely impossible.

# There is no information from the Director General of Shipping on whether an inquiry or investigation was carried out on the Indian crew and complement of the Jag Pushpa as well as the Pavit when they landed in India. There is no information on who the registered agents for the Pavit were, what information they may have provided about the status of the ship after it was abandoned, and most importantly, what attempts were being made, if any, to regain control of the Pavit.

So, what could have been done?

# A dead ship drifting around in one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world is certain to have been noticed by a vast variety of ships and reported in. Especially if she was not transmitting any recognition signals on her AIS (automatic identification signals). However, if she was transmitting her AIS, then certainly there was somebody, somewhere who was tracking her as she got closer and closer to the Indian coast; this is standard operating procedure for owners and insurers.

# One of the easiest measures would be for satellite tracking of all ships which are within 12 miles, or even more, of the Indian coast. This data is freely available. The big question is which agency will take this data, analyse it, spot the odd ones out which are not transmitting their AIS signals, or are too close without any business to be there? A proposal that seafarers, who are between exams, to be deputed to handle such information under a Vessel Tracking Scheme has been hanging fire for decades now, as the assorted ministries still try to get their act together.

# Rescue co-ordination, even if done in the Indian Ocean by a British warship, is monitored in India. The Jag Pushpa, by law, is supposed to provide full information on the episode to the Indian authorities. This information then becomes the core of an inquiry and investigation, especially since the seafarers on the Pavit were also Indians, and this could easily have provided ample advance information on the true antecedents of the Pavit as well as the shape of things to come.

Interim, on the basis of educated opinion as well as circumstantial evidence, it can safely be surmised that this ship, also, was somehow brought to within miles of the Mumbai coast and then released. That it landed on the coast of Juhu and not somewhere else, is more a question of nature favouring us again than anything else.

Record keeping at the DG Shipping office in Mumbai . . .

To give you an idea, for an incident involving fire on board a ship from one of the "leading" management companies, which also resulted in loss of life as well as total constructive loss of the ship. One asked for a copy of the enquiry reports and other documents - said enquiry continuing for a few years after the incident and pertaining to a lot that could be learnt for future generations of seafarers.

But what do you know? The answer I got to an RTI application filed almost 4 months ago, after due follow-up and First Appeal, has this to say:- "Being an issue over 11 years old, relating to the year 2000, the concerned files on this issue have to be traced from the official records of this organisation. Efforts are underway to do so, still. However, they have not been located, as yet, despite earnest efforts made towards that end by this office."

What does one say to this reality? Sure, the Joint DGS assures me of his best efforts to locate and retrieve, but is that what we have dropped down to at this office?

EPFO and the Indian Seafarer - a perspective (and opening gambit - service tax)

Some of us may recall the big scandal with the Seaman's Provident Fund, which had vanished as part of the even bigger Home Trade scam, some slight details of which are here:-

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_sailors-get-back-their-lost-pf_1067316

This was, in value terms, amongst the top 10 scams - considering that the Bofors scam was about all of about 25-40 crores. Ofcourse, scam levels have gone up now, and just one small builder EPFO scam in Delhi (kashyaps) has a figure of about 170 crores to it.

As far as Indian seafarers working on Indian or foreign flag ships are concerned, the matter is now moving up rapidly, and exemption granted to shipping companies and shipmanagement companies as a special case under the Seaman's Provident Fund Act and Amendment is being looked into. In any case, it is not possible that a "special" act for Indian seafarers should provide lesser provident fund for Indian seafarers!!

More on that later, there are many angles to it, including the definition of the word "employer", but here's an article I wrote on EPFO issues which might be of interest. As Indian seafarers, you may wish to ask your employer, too, about this.

http://moneylife.in/article/your-epfo-savings-could-be-at-risk-unless-you-secure-some-important-aspects-yourself/18329.html

The bigger issue here is this - for many Indian seafarers working on Indian or even foreign flag ships on contractual basis, the issue of service tax to be levied by the contractor (seafarer) on the shipping company / shipmanager, is being looked at. So, in other words, if you are working on "contract" wages, then be aware that you may be liable to charge service tax. Please do check with your tax consultant here, too.

And the question to our friends at DGS, soon in the form of an RTI, will be this:- how is the Seaman's Provident Fund giving lower returns than the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO)? The whole concept of an "exempted" category under the various Acts and Rules underlines the simple fact that a "special" provident fund will provide better returns than the "normal' EPFO.

Big question, that. If you look at the answer carefully, then Indian seafarers, whether on Indian flag or foreign flag, are served far better by being covered under the EPFO - just like any other "international worker". More on that soon, too . . .

what's quality of life like in your experience, onboard?

Recent developments in mercantile maritime matters worldwide, certainly when in the so-called developed countries and possibly also elsewhere, wherever IMO's writ allegedly runs, tend to also bring out two aspects, neglected or simply getting worse without contest, for far too long:-

1) The quality of life onboard, including accomodation, food, recreational facilities, communication/internet and safe manning. Add to that the kind of care given by the owners for small things like cabin linen/towels, and you get the idea.

2) The real truth behind the ownership and operation of the ship including beneficiary ownerships as well as other details often kept hidden from complement and port state authorities. This is having impacts on seafarers way beyond simple criminalisation.

In other words, it is even more important now than ever before, to be aware of as much as possible before signing up to go onboard a ship. Even if you have been with the company for a long time. Things are changing very rapidly in the real world, and working for the shipping fleets, especially those registered in offshore tax havens, is not as simple as it used to be - matter of fact it is, to give an example, as dangerous as taking a lift on a dark night in an unregistered can going through certain parts of India.

This writer has come across more than a few cases lately, where seafarers suffered because they didn't take basic precautions in advance, and here are some which stand out:-

# Reach on board and discover that cabin accomodation on what was obviously a very shoddily built ship meant that even the top-4 officers shared a toilet. Which may not sound like a terribly bad deal, but what makes it worse is if the single toilet itself keeps packing up all the time, and simply can not get fixed.

# The messing onboard was on some 500/- rupees or equivalent per day pattern, which worked fine as long as the supplies were taken from the more reasonable parts of the world. However, stranded alongside in a port where there was a civil war ashore meant the sum of money did not really manage to do the needful, and for some time the Master went out of pocket till he signed off.

# The actual hidden beneficiary ownership of a particular ship was traced back to a person whose nationality and pending issues were not acceptable in a port the ship called. After some time the ship was released and sailed on, but the Master was held back, in jail, for about 7 months before he was able to buy his own wy out by himself.

# There are, ofcourse, increasingly more frequent cases of owners abandoning vessel and complement on board, not just due to piracy but also for a variety of other reasons. This happens through registered and unregistered agents, and you can not expect too much help from the authorities in such cases.

It is, therefore, increasingly apparent that you as Indian seafarers will have to look after your own interests. Make your own checklist before you sign on the dotted line, or stick with the well reputed companies, which have adherences and policies way better than what the authorities require of them. They may not pay as much, or may be more stringent on documentation and qualifications, but in the forthcoming turbulence in the shipping world and world overall - certainly worth it.