Talk:Collision between MV Testbank and MV Seadaniel

NTSB marine accident report
The official report isn't available online, and doesn't appear to be part of the usual microform collections. See SuDocs TD 1.116:81-8,. I may be able to get it via interlibrary loan in a few weeks. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it. Will probably transcribe it and post to Wikisource in a couple weeks. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO numbers
MV Testbank may have been IMO 5356521, and MV Seadaniel may have been IMO 7515274. These need to be verified of course. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And apparently the IMO scheme came out years subsequent to this incident, so verification may be more difficult, even presuming the ships both still existed then (I've found unreliable sources that suggest both ships have since been scrapped). &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Correction: Testbank was probably IMO 7636949, which was originally the Charlotta. According to one unciteable source, she developed engine problems in 2006 and was anchored in Singapore. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Structure to come

 * lede
 * Collision
 * Testbank
 * Seadaniel
 * Cleanup
 * Litigation
 * Subsequent legislation
 * Related pure economic loss cases

Just laying things out for later use as this article comes together. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

area of radius?
400 square mile radius? You can't have a 2 dimensional radius, should this be 400 square mile area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.131.218 (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)