# Vetting



## borderreiver (Oct 11, 2008)

Tankers. Chemical tankers and gas carriers.
These vessels and officers are heavily vetted I believe after the Costa passager vessel grounding all vessels and officers should be vetted.


----------



## Robert Hilton (Feb 13, 2011)

borderreiver said:


> Tankers. Chemical tankers and gas carriers.
> These vessels and officers are heavily vetted I believe after the Costa passager vessel grounding all vessels and officers should be vetted.


What for? To say they promise to be good lads and not run on rocks. Or does a police record make a man an incompetent navigator?


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

borderreiver said:


> Tankers. Chemical tankers and gas carriers.
> These vessels and officers are heavily vetted I believe after the Costa passager vessel grounding all vessels and officers should be vetted.



But what would it achieve, not a lot I'd suggest except that the rest of us would have to endure the large number of inspectors who are becoming increasingly petty? I recall one SIRE inspector making a huge song and dance about there not being a brass plate on the radar stating that the speed input should be from the water log, despite the fact that all the time he was onboard they were in that mode. 
Then there was another one who devoted almost a page of A4 in his report due to there not being, in his opinion, enough delineation on passage charts. Or another who had real whinge that the Night Orders didn't contain almost a verbatim copy of standing orders, despite them being stapled into the front of said book and read and signed by all watchkeepers. I could go on, but what these instances had in common was the issue that they found nothing meaningful 'wrong', yet still had to pad out their report, to which those of us onboard were then pulled up about it by the 'Office' - a couple of these individuals even apologised and acknowledged that fact.
I'm very glad indeed that when I finally got out of the oil industry (one of my better decisions) and into the real world, that I left the vetting circus behind - because that is what it has become.
It has to be asked, what would further vetting have achieved with Costa Concordia, as periodic inspections can not prevent those who go on a 'whim', nor root out those clever enough to cover their tracks. All Carnival group companies are subject to an internal company inspection regime which probably exceeds anything seen in the oil industry, at least on the tanker side.


----------



## MARINEJOCKY (Nov 25, 2007)

I bet you were painting it "green" with white stripes ?


----------



## Malky Glaister (Nov 2, 2008)

Rock dodgers. Idiots all. You have to be near it before you hit it.

The company should have done the vetting for this bloke.

Regards Malky


----------



## Duncan112 (Dec 28, 2006)

James_C said:


> But what would it achieve, not a lot I'd suggest except that the rest of us would have to endure the large number of inspectors who are becoming increasingly petty? I recall one SIRE inspector making a huge song and dance about there not being a brass plate on the radar stating that the speed input should be from the water log, despite the fact that all the time he was onboard they were in that mode.
> Then there was another one who devoted almost a page of A4 in his report due to there not being, in his opinion, enough delineation on passage charts. Or another who had real whinge that the Night Orders didn't contain almost a verbatim copy of standing orders, despite them being stapled into the front of said book and read and signed by all watchkeepers. I could go on, but what these instances had in common was the issue that they found nothing meaningful 'wrong', yet still had to pad out their report, to which those of us onboard were then pulled up about it by the 'Office' - a couple of these individuals even apologised and acknowledged that fact.
> I'm very glad indeed that when I finally got out of the oil industry (one of my better decisions) and into the real world, that I left the vetting circus behind - because that is what it has become.
> It has to be asked, what would further vetting have achieved with Costa Concordia, as periodic inspections can not prevent those who go on a 'whim', nor root out those clever enough to cover their tracks. All Carnival group companies are subject to an internal company inspection regime which probably exceeds anything seen in the oil industry, at least on the tanker side.


Interesting, nowhere on the SIRE website or glossy pdf does it suggest that the inspectors are experienced mariners - merely that they have attended a training course and passed a formal examination (Would I be too cynical to suggest that the contents of the exam is outlined at a seminar much as recent GCSEs have been)
Seems to be very much a tick box exercise as is ISM - no doubt Costa are fully compliant with that white elephant also.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Ah, The vetting industry! One of their requirements is differential ability in GPS.

Why?

GPS can cater for differential correction (as does its IMO Performance Standard, without mandating it) and there is also an aircraft instrument qualified bolt-on around the USA but only the basic version is universal in terms of availabilty. Correctional transmissions are generally short range local services.

IMO requires only basic GPS (or GLONASS about which I have no experience).

It has seemed obvious to me that passage planning should allow for use of GPS standard accuracy only. It is absurd to allow safety margins to be compromised by assuming the higher accuracy of differential GPS when this may not be available throughout the voyage. 

Why put temptation in the way? - install only GPS without the bells and whistles.

(Differential correction etc. it is fine for DP ships but here we are usually interested in the difference between position fixes and not in their absolute accuracy - but for conventional trades it simply shouldn't be fitted). 

Sorry, hobby horse - had to be exercised before bed. Let's see if Costa Concordia outcome offers comfort one way or the other.

David V


----------



## smithax (Jul 16, 2009)

Confession time
I was in the popular position of being a SIRE Inspector.

To correct a comment.

A SIRE Inspector has to have either of a Masters or C/E License and 5 years sea time on the type of vessel being inspected. Details are in an OCIMF do***ent.

Regarding the comment about the speed input to the radar notice, I sailed with a 2nd Mate who was adament that it should be a ground track input. He was an ex lecturer in the Philippines.

Like all sections of our industry, there are prats who inspect ships, who have their little hobby horses which they will concentrate on, and do nothing to improve the industry. 
Unfortunately Inspections can be an ever tightening noose. Initially it was just basics being picked up on, but as ships staff become aware of these, the Inspectors dug deeper. 
Also it's a lot easier to criticize as an Inspector than to run a fault free ship.

On the other hand there are prats at sea, whose ships need to be inspected. A ship my company inspected tested for safe entry into a oil cargo tank by dropping a flaming piece of material into the tank. 

SIRE Inspections are not perfect by any means, but there is a need for them or something like it. 

I agree they are a pain in the butt for the ship staff.

O


----------



## callpor (Jan 31, 2007)

borderreiver said:


> Tankers. Chemical tankers and gas carriers.
> These vessels and officers are heavily vetted I believe after the Costa passager vessel grounding all vessels and officers should be vetted.


Borderreiver,
Depends what you mean by Vetting?

If you are refering to the well established ( oil industry) definition of Vetting as a complex quality assurance/risk assessment process that takes into consideration historical performance, TMSA (a detailed assessment of the effectiveness of the management system in a stage by stage basis, stage 1 being full compliance with ISM and stage 4 industry best practice), inspection evaluation record over time, incident history, PSC Inspection record etc... . Then the answer is probably yes. It is this kind of process used by many of the worlds major oil and chemical charterers to reach a risk based decision on which vessels to use in their service.

If you are refering just to the SIRE and CDI Inspections that gather data to be used in the vetting process then the answer is is less positive. Although these inspectors are not only trained in inspection and audit techniques they must also have appropriate qualifications as either Master or Chief Engineer and have recently served on the type of vessel being inspected for several (5) years as a minimum. All CDI Inspectors' performance is also regularly audited. They use the Inspection protocols developed by either OCIMF for SIRE or CDI to gather information about the vessel, its crew and operation, but do not make any evaluation of the data or reach any conclusion regarding accepability of the vessel. This is done by the charterers vetting department or in some cases by third party vetting services.

These vetting systems have proved very successful over the 15 or so years they have been in place across the oil and chemical/gas industries and helped to deliver a very safe and almost pollution free performance from vessels operating in this sector of the maritime industry. 

Whether the Passenger/Cruise industry operators have something similar I don't know. I am sure that there are plenty of corresspondents on SN that can enlighten us. Certainly if Costa or Carnival had a similar vetting process and used a system such as TMSA to measure the strength of the management system in total, the likelyhood of such an event as the Costa Concordia grounding would be very much diminished.

Chris


----------



## twogrumpy (Apr 23, 2007)

James_C said:


> But what would it achieve, not a lot I'd suggest except that the rest of us would have to endure the large number of inspectors who are becoming increasingly petty? I recall one SIRE inspector making a huge song and dance about there not being a brass plate on the radar stating that the speed input should be from the water log, despite the fact that all the time he was onboard they were in that mode.
> Then there was another one who devoted almost a page of A4 in his report due to there not being, in his opinion, enough delineation on passage charts. Or another who had real whinge that the Night Orders didn't contain almost a verbatim copy of standing orders, despite them being stapled into the front of said book and read and signed by all watchkeepers. I could go on, but what these instances had in common was the issue that they found nothing meaningful 'wrong', yet still had to pad out their report, to which those of us onboard were then pulled up about it by the 'Office' - a couple of these individuals even apologised and acknowledged that fact.
> I'm very glad indeed that when I finally got out of the oil industry (one of my better decisions) and into the real world, that I left the vetting circus behind - because that is what it has become.
> It has to be asked, what would further vetting have achieved with Costa Concordia, as periodic inspections can not prevent those who go on a 'whim', nor root out those clever enough to cover their tracks. All Carnival group companies are subject to an internal company inspection regime which probably exceeds anything seen in the oil industry, at least on the tanker side.


Goodness, is it that bad, makes you wonder how we used to from A to B in the good old days.
Could it be the case that in the old days people were well able to carry out their duties, whereas today they are not so well trained/skilled, and therefore have to be "inspected" more often.
Well for all the checking, Costa still managed to take rock samples.
(Cloud)


----------



## borderreiver (Oct 11, 2008)

I have found very few Inspectors to be over the top.Had one who went through the paper read out of VP movements to check that I went astern before entering the anchorage. I was used by two company's to sail on vessel to sail on vessel prior to vetting to check all his correct. 
I believe if we had independent inspectors' checking out the passage ships. The inspectors checking different part of the vessel. A master for bridge work. A HSE for galley and other for hotel areas and engineers for the rest. This might stop these groundings. food poising and engine fires seem to be in the papers at the moment .


----------



## Duncan112 (Dec 28, 2006)

I apologise for casting aspersions as to the qualifications and experience of the SIRE inspectors, obviously my doubts were ill founded and as Smithax points out there are prats in every walk of life. Sadly however it only takes one poor experience with say Port State Control to tar all such inspections with the same brush and undo a deal of good work.


----------



## surfaceblow (Jan 16, 2008)

I had an inspector that wanted a lockable cover installed over the bridge throttle lever so you could not accidentally move the throttle. When I told the inspector that the Bridge Control was only active when the Bridge was manned by an responsible Officer and the engine was ready to start his answer was so. 

Joe


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

smithax said:


> Confession time
> I was in the popular position of being a SIRE Inspector.
> 
> To correct a comment.
> ...


Did you ever get chased down a deck by an enraged Scottish engineer?


----------



## smithax (Jul 16, 2009)

never been chased by anyone unfortunately


----------



## Ian Brown (Jun 25, 2008)

Having been vetted to within an inch of my life I find it is getting increasingly petty. 
It's an arms race where whenever (we the ship) cover something new, another new angle is discovered or increasingly an old chestnut is reserected. 
I have no problem with relevent and knowledgeable observations but some are just personal opinion or insignificant. 
I like 1 major (British) oil major's idea where we have to complete a form commenting on the inspectors performance. 
A slight chance of redressing the imbalance where 'companies' don't want to make trouble with their customers by challenging some of the more dubious comments.
Every one has his most ridiculous observation story.
Mine is : Why is it not recorded in the Deck Log Book that the Master was called to the bridge when the vessel's position on this chart shows it was more than 2 miles off the course line, as stipulated in the Master's Standing Orders? 
Reply : Because it was he who made the alteration.
Then why was it not recorded in the Deck log book that he was not called because he was on the bridge? !!!!


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

smithax said:


> never been chased by anyone unfortunately


It wasn't you then-pass friend(Gleam)


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

smithax said:


> Confession time
> I was in the popular position of being a SIRE Inspector.
> 
> To correct a comment.
> ...


Ship "Managers" don't need to have any seagoing experience at all.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

chadburn said:


> Ship "Managers" don't need to have any seagoing experience at all.


Perhaps not but I only know one who didn't (and he was one of the most popular with owners and seastaff alike). I guess more and bad examples could be found but surely most of senior managements are are former masters and chiefs or I have been in a comfortable cocoon?

David V


----------

