Konecranes Marketing Manager for Port Cranes , Svend Videbaek, says the company has always believed that the heart of the container crane – comprising the motor, gearboxes, inverter drives and associated software – is of such importance that its design and manufacture must be kept in-house. The interaction of the motor, gearboxes and inverter drives represents the heart of lifting: here the crane’s performance, eco-efficiency and total lifetime value are defined to a great extent. “Driven by the customer’s container lifting needs, our R&D personnel are always working to improve the interaction of these core components. One of their main goals is to ensure that the energy requirements of our container cranes are in true balance with the work they do in container yards. This is the bottom line of the performance/eco-efficiency relationship in container cranes. It is of course an ever-moving target that Konecranes is always anticipating,” explains Videbaek.  “This is not to say that the “body parts” of a container crane – the bogies, gantries, trolley, lifting mechanisms and so on – are less important than the heart of the crane. On the contrary, they are just as important and a great opportunity to maximise the performance provided by the heart of the crane. Konecranes has introduced many innovations to container crane “body parts” that are highly appreciated by our container terminal customers. A prime example is our patented Active Load Control technology on our STSs, RTGs, RMGs and ASCs which prevents container sway and provides handling precision that was previously unknown,” Videbaek added.

Dampers versus chairs

One of the solutions that have recently entered the market was that of a crane damper design, jointly developed by Siemens and Kocks Kranes (see December 2010 issue) – Kocks developed and designed the damper and Siemens put the ‘brains’ behind the whole design. One of the major benefits is that it counter responds to any movement of the crane – albeit in a certain direction. “We believe the new crane damper design is a significant improvement in order to reduce the vibrations of the crane boom,” said Siro Brieda, Managing Director at Brieda Cabins, Italy. “If we consider that the new crane booms cover 23/24 rows and the trolley’s speed of the new cranes is 240m/m you can easily understand that this situation can produce a lot of vibrations and oscillations, of course this environment produces negative effects to the crane operators.”

Since 2008, Brieda Cabins, as a specialised crane cabin and control station manufacturer, developed a new control station – the Dynamic Control Station. This product is designed to reduce the overall stress, the vibrations and the back pain problems of the crane operators. “The base of our control station has a special shock absorber that reduces every vibration,” said Brieda. “With the dynamic control station we have improved the general ergonomics of the work posture and the health of operators.” Ergonomics, posture and health of the crane operators are also key-words in the answer from Merford Cabins based in the Netherlands.

“The efficiency of a crane depends on different aspects like performance and liability of the crane itself, the controllability of the crane and related processes around the crane,” said Marco Ottevanger, Sales Manager. “However, as long as cranes are man-operated, the efficiency of the crane depends highly on the performance of the crane operator.” The performance of the crane operator depends on various ergonomic factors. “The first factor cognitive ergonomics has to do with mental processes, perception, memory, reasoning, motor response etc. These cognitive ergonomics are influenced by the mental workload, decision making, skilled performance, human-computer interaction, human reliability, work stress and training,” Ottevanger explains.

“Together with organisational ergonomics (like socio technical systems, organisational structures, policies, processes etc) these aspects are more or less internal aspects at the ports. Involving the crane operator in the design and implementation of his working environment will result in higher commitment and performance of the crane operator. Eventually a better working environment will reduce complaints, fatigue and the rate of absenteeism.”  In consultation with numerous crane operators, port’s technical staff, port management, drive supplier and crane manufacturers, Merford has come up with specialised crane cabins providing a safe, healthy and efficient working environment. Special attention is paid to mental stress, vibration control, visibility, air and temperature control, physical ergonomics and the man-machine interface. It also looked at the physical loads on the operator, especially in STS cranes. Poor visibility may be the cause of bad posture resulting in physical load of the operator or poor visibility may result in inefficient or dangerous operation.  As a result Merford designed the roof suspended Ergoseat, useful for 95% of men and women worldwide providing upper body support to improve posture and unload the lower back when looking downward. It also designed a new generation control station – BalanSeat. The BalanSeat is designed for operators looking downward with specific requirements to a wider vision (for example with RTG and RMG). The seat is provided with an adjustable chest support (to unload the lower back, according to ISO 1122
6). The BalanSeat is provided with a high-tech mechanical suspension/balancing system to make the operators body weightless. Other products from Merford to make life more comfortable while being suspended above a ships hold is a cabin that creates an overpressure. By doing this gases from outside (like exhaust fumes from ships funnels) can’t enter the cabin. This new Merford Filter Unit is both a filter and overpressure unit. It can also install a new HVAC system, the Merford Climate Unit. HVAC Stands for Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning—three closely related fundamental functions which are essential in creating the perfect working conditions.

Cables

Despite the fact that since January 2009, the price of copper has almost doubled and is perhaps  the second most important economic indicator of hard commodities – behind crude oil, cable manufacturers continue to come up with innovative products. We have seen the elimination of the festoon systems on container cranes and looked at the electrification systems of Conductix-Wampfler, although this application was more for RTGs.

According to Thomas Kittel , Product Manager Crane Cables  at Prysmian, Germany, the need to turn power feeding cables from passive components into components with active features will become an important issue. Future cranes (no matter the type) will become more automated says Kittel. “As a result these machines will become more intelligent,” he states. The importance of sensing capability for cables will grow to secure reliability and functionality of the equipment. Back in September 2009 Prysmian launched an ‘intelligent’ cable system and the response from the industry was most encouraging. By using ‘traffic light’ symbols the system provides immediate feedback about the condition and remaining life-time of the main power supply cable thus preventing any breakdown. “This is a challenging project but we move ahead and this is unique concept in the crane market so far,” he concluded.

While in Belgium, the Port of Antwerp reduced its cargo dues substantially in 2010 for break-bulk vessels that were discharging and/or loading break-bulk cargo in the port. Since harbour and cargo dues will not be increased in 2011, this important reduction remains in place and will contribute to its success for the coming year.

Antwerp

Last year, the port of Antwerp handled a total of 8.5 million TEU – a 16.1% increase compared to the 2009 – securing its position as the number 2 European container port for the second year running. The Belgian port, which has room for further container-handling growth on its left bank Deurganck dock, is also second place in terms of total tonnages across all trades at 178 million tonnes, a rise of 13% compared to 2009.

Construction will also start soon on a much needed second dock on the left bank of the port, while negotiations will continue with dockers to implement flexible working for the general cargo trades.

At the beginning of December 2010 the Unions and employer’s association (CEPA) signed an important agreement with the Antwerp Port Authority that came into force on January 1st, 2011. This agreement will strengthen the position of Antwerp as it is a massive step forward in the modernisation of dock labour. Thanks to this accord the port of Antwerp will have a substantially improved position for break-bulk coaster traffic. By the same token the port will also boost its status as a trans-shipment hub for break-bulk cargo, thanks to the combination of regular deep-sea liner services with more and regular coaster opportunities.

Towards the end of 2010 Antwerp also completed the River Scheldt dredging works in Dutch waters – a process that has taken more than 10 years of negotiations with the Dutch Government. The deepening works will provide access for 13,000+ TEU container vessels to enter the second largest container port in Europe.

Zeebrugge

Staying in Belgium but heading further to the south, the Port of Zeebrugge has a new PSA container terminal coming on stream and is already looking at further expansion of its car and ro-ro facilities. It is also considering increasing container capacity by reclaiming more land from the sea – similar to the Maasvlakte II project in Rotterdam. In 2010, Zeebrugge saw total cargo throughput grow by 11% to a volume of 49.8 million tonnes. Interestingly, the port reports that – as a result of a strong rise in Ro-ro traffic and recovery of traffic of new cars – it gained ground in all port sectors. Ro-ro traffic not only recovered but it also grew by 30.9% compared to 2009 to a volume of 12.45 million tonnes. Compared to 2008 this reflects a growth of 5.4%. Last year, it also witnessed a slow recovery of the car industry as it handled a total of 1.6 million new cars. Although the port expects it will need another 2 to 3 years to recover from the global economic downturn it recorded an increase of 24.8% compared to 2009. Container traffic in general rose by 7.4% to a record volume of 2.5 million TEU. In 2010 the container industry was growing until August, in comparison to 2009. The services of CMA CGM largely contributed to these results. At the beginning of December the terminal of CHZ/PSA handled its one millionth TEU of the year. As from the second half of the year growth of container traffic weakened as Zeebrugge was affected by the discontinuation of TNWA/SCX and interruption Maersk Line AE9.

Ghent

In the meantime, the Port of Ghent is not sitting on its laurels but is working hard to bring some new customers to the port. Although limited by its expansion possibilities it signed up some new clients last year. At the end of 2010, Duval Terminal Services, part of the German Solvadis, was signed up by Ghent Port Company to establish itself at the north side of the Kluizen dock, on a site of over 22,000m² and over 125m of quay. Duval plans the construction of a sulphur terminal, storage possibilities and an office building. An annual traffic of at least 200,000 tonnes by seagoing vessels is forecast. Every year, around 40 million tonnes of cargo is handled in Ghent. Two thirds of this is transported on-board of seagoing vessels. Those vessels mainly import and export ores and metal residues, foodstuffs, animal feed, fossil and bio-fuels, wood and forest products, building raw materials, chemicals, minerals and cars. An important part of the seagoing traffic that calls at the port of Ghent is traffic between European ports; there is a major liner service between Ghent and Santos in Brazil. Inland navigation takes up the remaining third. Notably petroleum products, building materials, fuels and grain are increasingly transported by inland waterways. In the coming years, Ghent will further invest in the development and upgrading of the docks. For the 2010–2014-period it plans some heavy-weight investments in the port area. The port infrastructure will be further developed for a total amount of over Euro 10 million. At the Kluizen dock further dredging works will be completed along the quays at the canal side. Also the quay will be extended and a new quay will be constructed for inland navigation (2013-2014). At the Rodenhuize dock, the construction of a new quay at the northern side will start (scheduled for 2014). Consequently, vessels will also be able to moor at that side of the dock. The Rieme-North industrial site, managed by Ghent Port Company, will be fitted out with the necessary roads, sewerage and public  utilities and will be further developed into a ‘dry port’. This dry port will be available in the coming years for storage and distribution activities.

Rotterdam

In the Netherlands, the mega port of Rotterdam continues to tighten its grip on European container flows as its Maasvlakte II project is slowly but surely taking shape as it rises out of the sea, with the first phase opening for business in 2013 and a final phase capacity of 17 million TEU by 2030. Last year, cargo throughput in the port of Rotterdam rose to 430 million tonnes. This is 11.1% more than in 2009 and 2.1% more than in the previous record year 2008. Imports increased by 12% to 306 million tonnes, while exports rose by 9% to 124 million tonnes. Bulk was up by 11%, likewise containers/break bulk. Coal throughput fell by almost 2% while agri-bulk remained stable and other types of cargo showing an increase.  “This result is above expectations. Throughput was particularly stimulated by the 15% growth in world trade and the flourishing German economy. In 2011, government cutbacks will be more strongly felt throughout Europe. On the other hand, Rotterdam will continue to feel the heartbeat of the world economy. I am therefore cautiously optimistic about throughput which I expect to grow by 2 to 3% to around 440 million tonnes,” said Hans Smits, Port of Rotterdam Authority CEO. Total throughput of dry bulk cargo increased by almost 28% to 85 million tonnes. Although coal remain a growth product as a result of the mine closures in Germany, throughput fell by 1.7% to 24 million tonnes. Steam coal consumption decreased as a result of a decline in energy demand due to the economic downturn and low natural gas prices. Container throughput improved by almost 12% in comparison with 2009 and at 112 million tonnes was once again the most important cargo category in Rotterdam. Growth in TEU was back to “normal” increases last year (Rotterdam is also an empty container hub): up 14% to 11.1 million TEU. Trans-shipment of cargo heading for the Baltic region also did well. Other trans-shipment regions are declining: the UK/Ireland as a result of competition from the English ports, while Spain/Portugal is showing a geographic shift. However, throughput of intra-European containers, ‘short sea’, to these regions is increasing once again: a small increase to the UK, a substantial increase to the Iberian Peninsula and a very strong increase to Russia.

Amsterdam

Battling to get a share of the traffic coming to the Netherlands, the Amsterdam Seaport area is aiming to become one of the world’s key international logistics hubs. It ranks as Europe’s number four port and handles a little over 90 million metric tonnes of cargo annually. The Amsterdam port has facilities for handling, storing and trans-shipping all types of goods – from cocoa beans to coal and from paper to oil. Not only are various goods handled, stored and trans-shipped in the Port of Amsterdam, a quantity of the commodities is also processed in the port area.  At the beginning of the year, Amsterdam Seaports (comprising the ports of the North Sea Canal region) reported a 4% increase in trans-shipment for 2010 – worth approximately 90 million tonnes. Like any other port this increase might reflect a recovery from the global economic downturn compared to 2009 although the Amsterdam port alone witnessed a strong recovery in the last months of last year. In 2010, trans-shipment in Amsterdam port declined slightly by 1% to approximately 72.5 million tonnes compared to 2009. After a 7.1% drop in the first six months, the second half of the year compensated the drop by showing a strong 5% recovery. Total trans-shipment thus almost reached the 2009 level. In IJmuiden, the location of one of the ArcelorMittal steelmill in Europe, trans-shipment increased by 30% reaching 17 million tonnes, particularly due to the intensified demand for steel. In Zaanstad trans-shipment stabilised compared to last year, while Beverwijk witnessed an increase.

“Despite the economic crisis, the Amsterdam port region managed to book good results registering a 4% increase. Trans-shipment decline was no more than 1%, which is tiny. Last year our port was the fourth port of North West Europe following Rotterdam, Antwerp and Hamburg. I am very proud of this,” said Dertje Meijer, Port of Amsterdam’s President and CEO. Recovery is also visible in the iron ore trans-shipment. The same applies to agricultural bulk, sand, gravel and minerals. Roll-on/Roll-off trans-shipment recovered strongly this year, while general cargo and container trans-shipment declined. In total the Amsterdam port processed no more than 1 million tonnes of container cargo in 2010. Obtaining detailed figures on container throughput for the Amsterdam Container Terminals operated by international terminal operator HPH Port Holdings seems to be very difficult. There are direct connections with the hinterland through the ‘Betuweroute’ (rail) and Amsterdam-Rhine canal (inland waterway), which makes the port of Amsterdam easy to reach and ensures excellent connections to all the major European markets through deep sea, short sea, inland shipping, rail and road. As reported in last years’ January/February issue Amsterdam Seaports is hampered by the size of its locks in IJmuiden. Together with the Dutch government, Province of Noord-Holland and the City of Amsterdam the port of Amsterdam is in agreement about the funding of a large new sea lock whose purpose is to simplify access to the Amsterdam port region. On 27 November 2009 a covenant was signed to this effect. Under the terms of the covenant, the new lock will be operational in 2016, but questions remain if the new larger locks would beneficial to Amsterdam Port itself as there are several tunnels under the North Sea Canal, which could cause ‘depth’ access problems for larger vessels. Rail facilities within the port area are being constructed and expanded.   New rail yards are being built at numerous places within the port and connected to the main railway network.

Zeeland

One port that is optimistic for the coming year is Zeeland Seaports. The port had a good 2010 as it saw a 15% increase on cargo volumes compared to 2009 handling a total of 33 million tonnes. Imports grew from 21 million tonnes to 25 million tonnes, and exports from 7.6 million tonnes to 7.9 million tonnes. But that is not the only good news – the Dutch port which will be privatised as it entered 2011, had revenues of Euro 46 million and made a profit of Euro 6 million. “With the pending privatisation of Zeeland Seaports and with all the plans we and the companies in the port have, we will be entering 2011 full of confidence and we should, at all events, be able to achieve the same results as those for 2010,” said Managing Director Hans van der Hart.

This article is intended to help inform the debate on the use of arms, in particular, armed Sea Marshals, in the protection of vessels conducting commercial business at sea. At the outset the company that submitted this article acknowledges an interest through its support to GAC Solutions in the provision of maritime security services and support to maritime clients. The authors of the article, Andrew Kain, CEO and Ric Filon, Director Maritime Services, also try to provide an objective analysis of the situation confronting the maritime industry in respect of piracy, its growing effect on business, and the arming of ships.

Background

The underlying motivation to arm vessels is a genuine desire to protect crews, ships and cargo. However, the debate currently seems to be driven more by fear induced pressure on the stakeholders; the questionable authority of some proponents of arming ships; frustration throughout the industry at the apparent ease with which pirates can gain access and control of ships. There is also much confusion on the subject of arming vessels, with the polarised views of the absolutely “No” lobby and the definitely “Yes” lobby, an uncertain legal environment, the effects of competing interests and the absence of real direction. The effect of an over-dramatic media creates a perception of the frequency and impact of piracy attacks that is not borne out by statistics. Also, the argument for arming ships increasingly relies on the use of the strap line “No ship with armed escorts has been taken.” There are many equally true statements such as “ships with particular funnel markings have not been taken.”

Introduction

While piracy is a global phenomenon the main focus of concern is towards the Gulf of Aden/Indian Ocean and in particular Somali ‘sponsored’ piracy. In our view, the real debate should not be as to whether armed Sea Marshals are appropriate for the defence of vessels, but how to better protect shipping on a global basis. However, within the scope of this article we will focus only on the issue of arms in protecting a maritime adventure. Where the choice is “armed protection” or “no armed protection” we aim to provide clear guidelines as to how to evaluate the likely efficiency of weapons deployed and the capabilities of those employed to use them. We shall also provide some practical considerations in relation to rules of engagement and responsibility. In our view, the employment of armed guards does not, and should never allow the delegation of responsibility for their actions, or the accountability for the consequences from the employer.

The Risk Assessment

The start point in the decision making process as to whether to employ armed support for a maritime adventure should be based on a full understanding of the risks that must be mitigated. In the context of this paper this is piracy, or perhaps more accurately, the unauthorised access to a vessel of unknown persons with a view to detaining the crew, ship and cargo for ransom of some kind, or the removal of cargo and / or possessions of value. (This covers situations globally).

While this risk is not exclusive to the Gulf of Aden or Indian Ocean the issue, and in particular the cost to stakeholders, is more pronounced in this region; therefore, we will concentrate on Somali pirates and their modus operandi. It is fundamentally important to understand the MO (modus operandi) of pirates and their training and equipment; indeed, without an understanding any decision is likely to be flawed. Also, and in relation to Somali pirates, the debate as to whether they are actually pirates or terrorists, in the context of defending against them, is purely academic and has more to do with political agendas than providing a solution to the problem, and has no place in the threat assessment other than help define their motivation. The problem in the Gulf is primarily a land-based issue and will be resolved ultimately, if ever, with a political and economic solution in what is called Somalia. It is important to acknowledge that piracy is also an economic or commercial proposition and attacking its commerciality is important. Somali pirates range from the poorly equipped criminal opportunist to the highly organised groups employing mother ships and a variety of weapons and tactics. The fundamental issue is what can be done to protect the integrity of the maritime community in the most cost-effective way and which will be applicable in all risk areas. In any risk assessment, it is advisable to look at the situation from the attacker’s perspective. It is also important to understand the three elements that are necessary for any successful attack.

1. The motivation: As stated above this is clearly a commercial proposition with large sums to be made.

2. Opportunity: This is provided by the target market, i.e. ships; and in the case of transiting the Gulf of Aden it is fundamentally important to understand the opportunity a vessel presents to any potential attacker.

3. Capability: This is the resource, expertise and the training required by pirates to be able to take advantage of any opportunity presented to them.

With regards to motivation, if we are successful in removing the opportunities that exist and restrict the capabilities of the pirates it will become a less rewarding enterprise for pirates and in doing so we
attack their motivation. A brief example of this may be that if 20,000+ ships transit the Gulf of Aden each year, this provides 20,000 possible opportunities. While other obvious factors will remove some of these transiting vessels from the ‘opportunity’ category many more vessels could remove themselves from it if their Master and crew understood and were confident in the defensive capabilities of their vessels. Size, speed and freeboard are characteristics that, if supported by good procedures, should require no additional security and, properly utilised, will put many ships beyond the capabilities of the pirates. In principle, the identification and removal of as much opportunity as is possible (without affecting the commercial enterprise) and the restriction of the pirates’ capability to effectively deploy their resources combined with good procedures and their effective application will substantially mitigate the risk and will reduce the threat to shipping in general. A statement of the blindingly obvious, but fundamentally important, is that to achieve their aim, pirates must gain access to the controls of the target vessel. Gaining access to the deck alone need not necessarily provide access to controls. In any attack, we need to look at it from the pirate’s perspective and the problems confronting them in achieving their objectives. They must come alongside the target vessel; they must climb the vessel to gain access to the deck; they have to traverse the deck and companionways to gain access to and take over the controls. They must make a transit to a safe port and then carry out the rest of their activities. Resources they will require include a mother ship (particularly in exploiting opportunities that may exist out into the Indian Ocean), launches or skiffs to come alongside the target vessel, makeshift ladders or means to gain access to the handrails and thereafter the deck, and weapons (mainly to intimidate, such as RPG7s and AK47s). Difficulties that will confront pirates include sea states, bad weather, height and difficulty of freeboard to climb, speed of target vessel, wash and manoeuvring, as well as weapons effectiveness (they do not have the weapons with the capabilities of stopping the majority of ships unless their intimidating image prevails!). A stationary vessel in a calm sea is a considerably easier prospect than one that is manoeuvring at speed. All mariners and pirates know this.

Weapons and effects

Hollywood and the media have greatly exaggerated the destructive power of such weapons as the RPG7, while the AK47 has an iconic status. The RPG7 is a rocket propelled grenade, with very limited capability and effect. The AK47 is a superb close quarter battle weapon, ideal for insurgents, pirates and many others, because of its simplicity and functionality. However, it is a very inaccurate weapon, with little penetration capability. Both can, and do, create a situation of panic and fear in those with no understanding because of the noise effect and peoples’ unrealistic image of their capabilities. That said, the inherent inaccuracies of the weapons and their very limited effectiveness are not the main considerations in whether to arm Sea Marshalls or not, although they should contribute to the argument against arms in most cases. From considerable experience in shooting, training and developing shooting techniques, we can testify to the difficulties experienced by most professional soldiers in achieving hits over 100, 200 and 300 meters, when firing from a stable ground platform against a stationary target fixed to a stable platform in a benign range environment. When you apply any movement at either end, the difficulty increases dramatically and when movement is at both ends, accuracy is replaced by luck. The chances of anyone firing from a moving skiff and hitting what they are aiming for, is very low. A hit with even an RPG7, to do any serious damage, would have to be luckiest shot in the world, and would certainly not be the result of deliberate aimed shot at a specific point on the vessel.

Weapons for Defence

The use of weapons to counter piracy, (and there may be circumstances where some vessels and transits will require weapons as part of the defence) needs to be carefully thought through. The application of weapons should be a staged approach with the first being deterrence. For deterrence to be effective, knowledge of the weapon systems presence must be with the pirates. It must also be in their minds the fact that the weapon systems on board the vessel are more powerful than their own otherwise any deterrent effect is diminished. To achieve this, the weapons systems on board have to be prominently displayed at least at the point of danger. The next stage where deterrence has failed is to effectively neutralise an attack. The weapons must either be able to put down sufficient fire power as a demonstration to clearly convince pirates that further attack would not be in their interest; or be of sufficient accuracy to disable the power units of pirate vessels; ideally without endangering any of the occupants of the pirate vessel. This requires a category of weapons that can be described as ‘specialist’. Weapons such as pistols, shotguns and single shot rifles are not capable of providing a deterrent. Neither are they capable of effectively stopping a determined armed attack. Of equal importance is the expertise of those handling the weapons systems on board ship and this is an area where the shipping industry will find it most difficult to determine.

Rules of Engagement

When the risks are fully understood, the appropriate weapons systems have been identified and are manned by those of requisite experience so that the advantage and control of situation clearly lies with the ship and its security there needs to be clear rules of engagement to cover every situation. Perhaps two of the most difficult areas within the rules of engagement are firstly, who has control of the situation and secondly, what actually constitutes a risk to life whereby pirates would be engaged with lethal force. It is our view that in all circumstances the Master must have control (and this is probably the legal position), supported and advised by the Head of Security.

What constitutes a risk or a threat to life will, in many cases, be subjective and dependent on the experience of those security operatives involved and this could increase dramatically the potential for criminal error.

Summary

To achieve and then maintain control, the industry nee
ds to institutionalise a better understanding of the actual risks confronting it. It must also have the means to communicate this knowledge to individual ship’s Masters, Officers and crews, so that all can and do understand the ‘actual’ risks and how to mitigate them. In situations where it is considered appropriate to have weapons on board vessels, there needs to be a clear understanding of what constitutes appropriate weaponry that will effectively provide deterrence, and where deterrence fails be capable of effectively neutralising an armed and determined attack.  Where weapons are deployed, it is absolutely critical that those employed to operate them have the appropriate skills and experience and are also current in weapon use. Finally, rules of engagement need to be appropriate and have to be realistic; and there must be absolute clarity as to who has control. The legal ramifications of this practical consideration are likely to be extensive. Without proper consideration of the factors above, the deployment of weapons on vessels will do nothing to reduce the risk of piracy to shipping and could in fact ‘perversely’ add further and unnecessary risks to the industry at considerable extra cost. The potential means of reducing the commercial return for pirates and of imposing considerable financial pressures on them currently exists within the power of the industry, without resort to arms.