Firearms for the crew

[cougaraz]

Hi All

 

Its only last year that a merchant stopped at a port in India with a number of armed security personal onboard, as they were sailing into pirate waters,

what happened they got arrested and it took months to get them out of jail.

 

Scotland is to start requiring licences for air guns, so no way a cruise with a hand gun onboard is going to get into local waters.

 

If cruise ships are to cruise in dangerous locations, then the professionals ie the military are the only ones that should be armed.

 

yours Shogun

 

It is substantially cheaper and more efficient to have security aboard ships handled by private contractors. The enormous expense, logistical requirement and massive overkill of having military personnel provide the security is simply impractical. Further, each flag state would have to provide the security, thus requiring them to deploy military forces based on cruise ship schedules, very inefficient and disruptive to other operations. It makes far more sense to have warships patrol the IRTC, coast guard and local police provide security in port and cruise ship employees or contract security personnel provide on board security as dictated by the situation.

 

Don't mistake contracted security personnel for anything less than professional. I have had a chance to work with them, in combat, and they are some of the very best on the planet at what they do. When the stuff gets real, they know what to do.

[AmazedByCruising]

Actually way less than the shipowner. The more restrictive flag states like the EU and US allow weapons, so the flags of convenience basically don't even consider the question, they let the shipowner decide.

 

This (Dutch, sorry) http://nos.nl/artikel/600218-reders-beveiliging-piraten-urgent.html that summarizes an interview with a lobbyist for Dutch shipping companies says "The Netherlands is the only country left that does not allow private security on ships. The pirates are supposed to be handled by Dutch marine but they cannot handle the job and are too expensive at 5000 euro/day. She wants the law changed but that will take a while."

 

If that is (still) the actually situation (the article is from January last year) I'm not sure I'd want to be on a (Dutch flagged) HAL ship sailing near Somalia.

[chengkp75]

This (Dutch, sorry) http://nos.nl/artikel/600218-reders-beveiliging-piraten-urgent.html that summarizes an interview with a lobbyist for Dutch shipping companies says "The Netherlands is the only country left that does not allow private security on ships. The pirates are supposed to be handled by Dutch marine but they cannot handle the job and are too expensive at 5000 euro/day. She wants the law changed but that will take a while."

 

If that is (still) the actually situation (the article is from January last year) I'm not sure I'd want to be on a (Dutch flagged) HAL ship sailing near Somalia.

 

Not sure of the exact wording of the Dutch law, but HAL has been operating "private security" for years. If this refers to "armed security", then there may be a difference between passenger ships and cargo ships.

 

As far as Somalia, EUNAVFOR is there with a rapid response task group, and aircraft, a convoy system for critical areas, and ship reporting. Ship attacks have virtually stopped since 2013.

 

Every ship in the world has an SSAS (Ship Security and Alert System) which with one push of a button will broadcast the ship's position, name, and that it is in distress on international maritime emergency satellite frequencies. Once pressed, the Alert can only be cancelled by the Company Security Officer (ashore in the head office) after contact with the vessel and the flag state and port state military/coast guards.

[sfaaa]

Incidents involving pirates may have dropped in Gulf of Aden but Al-Shabaab is extremely active in Somalia. I have no doubt these Islamic terrorists would love to bag a cruise ship full of Americans and western nonbelievers.

[dwgreenlee]

This (Dutch, sorry) http://nos.nl/artikel/600218-reders-beveiliging-piraten-urgent.html that summarizes an interview with a lobbyist for Dutch shipping companies says "The Netherlands is the only country left that does not allow private security on ships. The pirates are supposed to be handled by Dutch marine but they cannot handle the job and are too expensive at 5000 euro/day. She wants the law changed but that will take a while."

 

If that is (still) the actually situation (the article is from January last year) I'm not sure I'd want to be on a (Dutch flagged) HAL ship sailing near Somalia.

 

Not sure how current this is but the attached link shows the flag state regulations of armed security. It agrees with what you said. There is also the option to have the armed security follow in a patrol boat of another flag.

 

http://www.ics-shipping.org/docs/default-source/Piracy-Docs/comparison-of-flag-state-laws-on-armed-guards-and-arms-on-board3030D998A844.pdf

[Colo Cruiser]

As stated basically up to the company.

Some ask that security teams have training to STCW standards.

[AmazedByCruising]

Not sure of the exact wording of the Dutch law, but HAL has been operating "private security" for years. If this refers to "armed security", then there may be a difference between passenger ships and cargo ships.

 

I'm sure this is about armed security, as her own party (she may not be the best lobbyist) responded "government should maintain its monopoly on armed force and that's it". After a lifetime career of being a politician, only one step outside was enough to discover that real life is completely different from what politicians think it is.

 

I don't think there is a difference between passenger ships and cargo ships but I haven't been able to find the exact laws.

 

Maybe pirates are not a big threat anymore. But one day there's that one passenger who thinks 72 virgins are waiting in heaven after sinking the ship, and no crew able to use serious force to prevent him from testing that hypothesis because of one stupid member of parliament.

 

Actually, I think that if Carnival would just suggest reflagging MS Rotterdam to the Bahamas is a reasonable option "we want to be able to protect our passengers but Dutch law doesn't allow it", they could stir up huge media attention ("our very own HAL! The Bahamas? No way!") , and proper, armed, security would be possible within weeks.

[dforeigner]

Don't blame me. All I did was input the links to each picture and CC did the rest. The new format does not allow resizing of uploaded pictures.

[geomac53]

Yes all Cruise ships have plans for armed incursions. be it fire hoses and sound guns, or arms in a locker beside the tender port bays. I am pretty sure they are prepared. I have not heard about many incidents. As far as people brining them onboard they X-ray all bags before loading and carry on as well.

In regards to Cabo What I was concerned about was why was there a necessity to have them there. And YES I would be afraid if a USCG Gun ship came charging up with guns manned!

[Colo Cruiser]

And YES I would be afraid if a USCG Gun ship came charging up with guns manned!

 

 

You must not sail into or out of US ports then because they are always manned.

[chengkp75]

You must not sail into or out of US ports then because they are always manned.

 

And frequently, USCG armed Sea Marshals board the ship during arrival/departure. These guys will be armed with M-16's, and they will be on the bridge and engineering. I've even had them wander into the buffet for a free lunch.

[sfaaa]

And frequently, USCG armed Sea Marshals board the ship during arrival/departure. These guys will be armed with M-16's, and they will be on the bridge and engineering. I've even had them wander into the buffet for a free lunch.

 

M16 is for small games. USCG boats have M249 SAW mounted on the bow. Belt fed and fully manned ready to rock. Beautiful sight. Scare the hell out of the bad guys and terrorists.

[benchdex]

Yes all Cruise ships have plans for armed incursions. be it fire hoses and sound guns, or arms in a locker beside the tender port bays. I am pretty sure they are prepared. I have not heard about many incidents. As far as people brining them onboard they X-ray all bags before loading and carry on as well.

In regards to Cabo What I was concerned about was why was there a necessity to have them there. And YES I would be afraid if a USCG Gun ship came charging up with guns manned!

 

In the past many years, the Mexican Navy and Coast Guard always have provided ship security with visible mounted weapons. As a security courtesy, they have always provided round the clock boat nearby the cruise ship the entire time. As said by others, this is nothing new. It is now also common to see police and Navy divers inspect the hull of the ships when docked. Especially in Cartegena, but seeing more often in other ports as well. Interesting to watch.

 

The Small Coast Guard swift boats in NY, SF and Florida all have a mounted gun on the bow. Maybe you just haven't noticed in the past, but it's been that way ever since 2001.

 

Rather than being afraid, I like the plan, "Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst". Anything less is stupid.

Edited July 1, 2015 by benchdex

[chengkp75]

M16 is for small games. USCG boats have M249 SAW mounted on the bow. Belt fed and fully manned ready to rock. Beautiful sight. Scare the hell out of the bad guys and terrorists.

 

Yes, seen the "teenager" sitting behind it many times, but they don't bring it onboard the ship. Amusingly, when they do board, the ship's Security Officer requests ID from these uniformed personnel. One guy had left his onshore, and was denied boarding. He protested, but his superior told him that if the ship let him board without ID, they could be fined for violation of the ISPS code. I'm sure it took a while for him to live it down back in barracks.

[Colo Cruiser]

OK OK, I concur. I guess that's why cruise ships don't show Rambo movies or American Sniper on Lido deck anymore.

 

Well they did show Titanic. :o