The captain is always in command and is responsible for the ship. The pilots assume command with the approval of the captain only. The captain can withdraw the approval at any time.
In the article the spokesperson for the insurer is quoted as saying:
"It is important to clarify that whilst the master is ultimately responsible for the vessel, navigation in the canal transit within a convoy is controlled by the Suez Canal pilots and SCA vessel traffic management services. Such controls include the speed of the transit and the availability of escort tugs."
In other words, they do not accept that the simple rule of the captain being responsible for the ship is all there is to it, case closed.
I'm not saying they are/were right or wrong, just that they are not a random pseudonymous person on the internet who's ignorant of the shipping industry and can be dismissed the same way.
Isn't that exactly what they are saying? It was in response to the SCA statement about how the ship was going too fast and inadequately controllable; they responded that while the responsibility ultimately lies with the captain, he was under the guidance of SCA staff and tugs for speed and piloting, not a drunk teenager whom they had no influence over, which is how the SCA has tried to frame this from the beginning.
The insurer seemed to be acknowledging that the formal rule about the captain exists, while claiming that's not the end of the discussion about responsibility.
That suggests to me that quoting the rulebook isn't really an adequate response to the original question of why isn't it the pilot's fault. It's the position of the SCA, by definition.
I guess we will never know though, what was agreed on, because it was settled in private.
>The insurer seemed to be acknowledging that the formal rule about the captain exists, while claiming that's not the end of the discussion about responsibility.
I don't disagree with your broader point, but an insurance company acting like a claim is disputable doesn't really tell us anything. It's just the default sort of response for any insurance claim, just magnified to scale.
I'd expect them to be phrasing it as an open matter even if the captain had drunkenly taken control and stuck the ship himself.
While technically correct I would (reasonably) expect the captain to only exercise this in extreme circumstances. Asserting control in an ambiguous situation can be a difficult decision.
Also, if I were a captain, I would reasonably trust the judgment of a pilot whose job is to navigate ships through the canal unless in the case of, as you noted, "extreme circumstances"; and even withdrawing approval may be too late, given how slow ships of this size are to respond to sudden control inputs.
Holland America has an good FAQ on this topic: https://www.hollandamerica.com/blog/technical/what-does-the-...