3.489 This therefore leaves the question whether the arbitrators in London Arbitration 11/97[1] were right in their conclusion, based on ‘‘accessible’’ being limited to meaning ‘‘able to get into’’ but not extending to ‘‘able to get out of’’ the berth, and being confined to the vessel herself. If they were, then what does ‘‘always’’ add? The answer will perhaps have to await further arbitral and judicial decisions.
　　3.489因此，这里留下的问题是：在伦敦仲裁1997年第11号案中，仲裁员基于‘accessible’的意思被限制于‘只能够进入’泊位而并没有延伸扩展到‘能够离开’泊位，而且被限制在船舶本身，这样做出的结论是否正确？如果他们是正确的，那么，为什么要加‘始终’这一单词？也许这一答案需要等待进一步的仲裁和司法审判。
　　3.490 A further issue arose in London Arbitration 11/97[2] relating to a period of delay after the vessel had left the berth and anchored in the inner port, but was unable to leave the port until the next high tide. On that point, the tribunal were clearly right in holding that the phrase ‘‘always accessible’’ gave no protection to the owners since it clearly describes the berth and not the port.
　　3.490在伦敦仲裁1997年第11号案中，还提出另一个争议，在船舶已经离开泊位并在内锚地抛锚，而只有到下一个高潮才能离港，有关这段时间由谁承担？针对此点，仲裁庭显然是正确地裁决：‘始终自由进入靠泊’这一短语是不能给予船东以保护，因为它明显描述的是泊位而不是港口。
　　3.491 If the warranty does extend to departure from the berth, any claim will be one for detention, since laytime or time on demurrage comes to an end on completion of loading or discharging as the case may be.
　　3.491如果这种保证确实能够延伸扩展到离开泊位的情况，任何索赔都将是一个滞期延迟损失的索赔，因为装卸时间和滞期费上时间已经在装卸货完成时就结束了，视情况而定。
　　Always afloat 始终保持漂浮
　　3.492 As mentioned previously (see para. 3.480 above), this phrase is often added to the phrase ‘‘always accessible’’. The same problem arises with both in relation to the question as to when it ceases to have effect as a warranty. If it is part of the description of the berth (see para. 3.480 above) then it is clearly once the vessel sails from the berth. However, in London Arbitration 1/09,[3] where the vessel grounded after leaving the berth but whilst still within the harbour, although on the facts of the case the tribunal held that no time was lost to the owners they did not reject it as a matter of law. The brief report of the case does not, however, make it clear whether the ‘‘always afloat’’ provision related to the port or the berth. If the owners had succeeded it would presumably have been as damages for breach of warranty or a claim for detention.
　　3.492如前所述(参见上文第3.480段)，这一短语经常是与‘始终自由进入靠泊’添加在一起。关于这两个短语产生的同样的问题是：这一保证的效力何时停止？如果它只是泊位描述的一部分(参见上文第3.480段)，那么很显然，一旦船舶离开泊位即可停止。然而，在报道的伦敦仲裁2009年第1号案，船舶离开了泊位但还在港内时发生搁浅，尽管根据案情事实，仲裁庭裁定船东并没有时间损失，然而他们也没有拒绝认为这是一个（可以上诉的）法律观点。所以，该案件的简要报告也没有表明‘始终保持漂浮’条文是否与港口还是与泊位相关。如果船东能够胜诉，这大概是作为违反保证的损失索赔或者是船舶延滞的索赔。