Saw "Captain Phillips"

GeeBee

GeeBee

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2000
RO Number
385
Messages
2,888
Saw "Captain Phillips" last night. Good movie, good boating!

Of course the ship handling scenes were not realistic because Captain Phillips cons his own ship. But I guess they had to put those scenes in since he wrote them in his book too ;)
 
Quite frankly I did not see him as a hero in the book or the movie. I saw him making tough decisions on the fly under immense pressure, not always perfect in hindsight, but doing the job a leader does. If the crew members are "denying his heroism" I would think he would be the first to say that and nothing in the movie I think portrayed him as such. Most the time he looked as scared as I would be.
 
Captain Philips lives just 20 miles from me and even closer to VTboater. He is a humble and unassuming man who is a little uneasy with all the fan fare. He consistently states that the true heros are the military that came to the rescue. I haven't seen the movie yet, the sneak preview at our local theatre with the Captian attending, was sold out. The local word is that it is an entertaining film. .
 
Movie was well done - i enjoyed watching knowing the scenario was real. I can live with the fact that some of the details were made for the movies.

Curious though, is it really against the law, or Maersk, or something else that a boat/crew like this couldn't be adequately armed to protect themselves? Anyone know?
 
"Curious though, is it really against the law, or Maersk, or something else that a boat/crew like this couldn't be adequately armed to protect themselves? Anyone know?"

Cannot comment but in considering the whole thing, a single 50 cal Barrett would have been a game changer. One round through the outboard and it would be all over.
 
I can just see trying to HIT an outboard on a bouncing skiff from a moving vessel with a Barrett, though in most cases you probably wouldn't have to. Half a dozen rounds into or around the boat would probably change their minds.

Some countries take a dim view of an armed vessel of any kind coming into their waters, just as some cities/governments don't want you "carrying" onto their property. As merchant vessels are all about TRADE, their owners don't want to be carrying anything that might interfere with doing business. It's not like they can leave their ordinance at the sea buoy. Also should the weapons get into the wrong hands they could be a danger to the ship's own crew.

Then there's the bottom line, cost; in most cases those weapons would just be an expense, what with the cost, maintenance, training, and liability. As modern-day pirates are mostly about ransom, it's a lot cheaper to simply carry insurance.

Each country controls it's own waters and makes it's own laws regarding same. There is the "law of the sea" and the "right of innocent passage", however once you're armed, you're no longer "innocent".

Just like carrying your 9mm into the Federal building. If it's found, it's suddenly more trouble than it's worth.

All those are just possible reasons. I can't quote any specific laws.
 
Very good movie. A great nights entertainment. Tom Hanks always gives a good performance. As others have stated, I don't believe that the movie attempted to portray Capt. Phillips as a hero. He seemed to be someone who reacted to the situation that he was placed in, and certainly appeared to care about the well being of his crew at all times. It was not his intention to leave his ship in the life raft with the pirates.

I also was surprised that they did not have some sort of weapon on board that would have prevented the pirates from boarding and taking command of his ship. The pirates were not well organized, and a crew with minimal arms and training should have been able to thwart their efforts.

But hey in reality it was just a Hollywood movie, and most likely not the most accurate one.
 
Yes, but they did not declare the weapons is what that article is about. It is not that weapon carrying is illegal. Look, if it is illegal to have weapons on a ship, then what about every cruise ship that skeet shoots off the stern and has a locker of shotguns? Are they in breach of the law and give up "innocent" status?
 
I am sure every country has it's own laws related to weapons aboard in their territorial waters and it is up to the ship owners to pre assess the political sensitivity to these weapons. It is possible they didn't declare the weapons because they knew they would not have been given a permit or they wanted to avoid the hassle of the ensuing declaration (paperwork and delay)...the article doesn't say. The article does say there was an incident involving fishermen being killed which leads me to believe there would have ultimately been a big to do about the weapons even if they were legal. My point of linking the article is to show that sometimes what appears to be a simple solution is sometimes more complicated.
 
I don't argue having weapons can complicate things, but, in the captain Phillips scenario where they navigated pirate infested waters, seems an insurance company would require a few weapons be onboard to thwart pirates in "skiffs". I assumed, in the real life scenario, that some regulation prevented the ship from having weapons but I wasn't sure. I know if I ever get down to the carribean with my own boat I will be carrying for prevention first, self defense as a last resort. Seems logical a commercial vessel would do the same, especially rounding the horn.
 
Insurance companies play the odds, as do the shipowners. Large ships well out at sea would usually be out of range of pirate skiffs and in any kind of weather could easily outrun them. Smooth weather or pirate "mother ships" are another story.

If the weapons are properly listed, declared and locked up while in a country's waters I'm sure some countries would be OK with it, but not necessarily all of them. It would still be a hassle and an expense.

The ship that was detained was apparently providing "security teams" (mercenaries) for other vessels; likely meeting them in international waters and putting the team on, then another vessel takes the team off near the destination port. It would avoid the hassles for the cargo ship and probably works well, MOST of the time.
 
My son is currently at Mass Maritime Academy. I believe Capt Phillips son is there also. My son said that if a merchant marine ship has weapons on it then some countries consider it a warship. He just asked that question in one of his classes last week, and that is the answer he got.
 
I expect that's pretty much the case, and anything that interferes with "doing business" is to avoided. Remember it's all about the money, which is why they're called "merchant" ships.
 
Well I can tell you for a fact, India has no problem with armed security aboard IF you properly declare them AND the weapons are secured by the local police upon arrival. They even place a spot on the Gen Dec for the Captain to so declare.
 
As long as you don't go about shooting their people. I understand that upsets them.
 
Well clearly, they lost their "innocent status". They had armed guards!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top