# What shall we do with the drunken sailor?



## John Campbell (Aug 30, 2005)

Reading today's _Shiptalk - Newsletter_ I was not astonished to read this article - I was waiting for it to come up - it just goes to show that all those boffins who spent hours drafting the regulations had no common sense. 
I wonder what our *ancient mariners *will say about this?

*SAFETY/NAVIGATION
Drunken Sailor Failure*_What a strange age we live in, where the law and common sense can be so readily and easily disconnected from each other. A time where natural justice seems to have vanished in a cloud of confused thinking and backside covering. Today seemingly “human” and compassionate decisions are judged and even those made with the very best of intentions can seem wrong.

We are referring to a recent court case in which an offshore supply vessel captain was fined for allowing crew members to return to the docked ship when under the influence, in contravention of the rules laid down in the vessel's safety management system (SMS).

The ruling related to an incident in 2007 when a number of officers and crew went to a local pub. Upon later returning to the ship one officer then went to make a cup of coffee and fell down the stairs, tragically dying as a result of his injuries. The subsequent post mortem showed that he was more than three times over the statutory alcohol limit of 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) stated: "The company had an established safety management policy that banned those that had been drinking to excess coming aboard”. They went on to add that the master “failed to ensure this was complied with and tragically on this occasion someone died”.

So what can you do? What should be done? What a dilemma...leave the drunken man alone on a dock? Tuck him up under a load of old Lloyd's Lists near the gangway until he sobers??? What about the port? Should they be letting intoxicated sailors into their guarded bastions??

All too often the safety management requirements are written in cold, harsh isolation – remote from facts, from real life and from human pressures. The man shouldn't have been onboard, ok we get it and agree, but where was the guidance to state what options the master should've had? Having systems that don't adequately reflect the risks posed are weak and unworkable…just saying don't let them onboard is not an answer, it is a problem masquerading as a solution. _

JC


----------



## GWB (Jul 11, 2007)

Does this mean we no longer take responsibility for ourselves when off duty and on return to ship drunk, becomes the Masters and shipping company fault Bu____T.
The drunk was at fault not the Captain but I bet the lawyer's had a field day applying OHS and claiming share of payout.

GWB


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

John Campbell said:


> What about the port? Should they be letting intoxicated sailors into their guarded bastions??JC


For at least a decade it has been normal for many facilities, especially oil terminals, to apply a 'no drugs, no alcohol' policy and to reserve the right to test persons entering the site for such substances. We had employees that were breathalysed, including some that failed the test (in spite of arriving while driving company-supplied vehicles). They were refused entry and we, as their employer were notified of 'the offence' and warned that if there were future occurrences, none of our employees would be permitted on site.

As usual, it appears that there is nothing new in the marine world, it has all happened before.


----------



## Billieboy (May 18, 2009)

Yet another reason to celebrate being ashore! As for H&S regulation writers, most are useless as they generally don't know what they're talking about. 

As for writing safety regs, I had the occasion to discuss hot work safety on OBOs Tankers, Product and Gas carriers, with the Dutch Port safety Authorities, and Scheepvaart Inspectie(BOT/DTI) in the late eighties, Two solid days it was, Oral grillings by BOT examiners had nothing on this lot! A year later I was informed that, a course had been set up for certification of repair companies, doing Hot Work on vessels within Dutch National ports and limits. I had to take a witten examination, for a certificate of competence! It's extremely off-putting, to find ones own words phrased as an examination question! My certificate is still valid BTW.


----------



## Nick Balls (Apr 5, 2008)

Its been UK law for years !! Criminal Act to drink on ships 
Strangely called "The Railway and Transport Act 2003"
See www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030020_en_6#pt4-pb1-l1g78

Also coming to a Yacht club near you soon!!!


----------



## Alistair Macnab (May 13, 2008)

I have every rerason to agree with John Campbell. Rules written for ship and personal safety should be written and followed. BUT... The writers of any such rule should be made to also promulgate in writing a selection of action plans for the amelioration of the rule breakage. This would make them more aware of the harmful side of their supposed do-gooding.
This ivory tower rule/law making without responsibility is unfortunately prevelant in today's overall society not just on ships.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Latterly in BP we had a goals based safety slogan which was inflicted on all and sundry at every opportunity:

Our Goals are Simply Stated - 
*No Accidents
*No Harm to People
*No Damage to the Environment

Of course it wasn't long before those terrible, independently thinking thought criminals they employed - which were known as British Merchant Seamen, came up with their own version:

Our Goals are Simply Stated:
*No Drink
*No Shoreleave
*No Fun

The Office staff were most definitely not amused...


----------



## Steve Woodward (Sep 4, 2006)

One could of course blame the pub, they shouldnt have let him out of the door until her was sober.
I feel this is a really sad case, following the law to a T it ws the captains fault, but in this case I feel the law is an ass, what on earth was the ship supposed to do - let him sleep it off on the jetty, surely there is a duty of care - human compassion ?


----------



## JimC (Nov 8, 2007)

"We are referring to a recent court case in which an offshore supply vessel captain was fined for allowing crew members to return to the docked ship when under the influence, in contravention of the rules laid down in the vessel's safety management system (SMS)."
Typical non- sense in the truest meaning of the phrase.

I read this as 'the person who was to enforce the law failed to do so therefore was fined'.

Does this mean that a police constable can be fined because he failed to stop an individual breaking the law?
Does it mean your wife, partner, parent or guardian can be fined if you are allowed home 'out of your box'?


A ship is the temporary home of an individual. After all, 'bed and board' have always been considered part of our 'wages'.
An hotel is also the temporary (sometimes permanent) home of an individual.

Does this mean that you can go 'home' only if you're sober?

Does anyone remember how a seafarer on board a UK ship in a UK port is treated on census night?


What is the ruling concerning passengers coming back 'guttered' from shore-leave? Should they be refused entry to the docks?

I suspect that the insurance industry has a vested interest in keeping most of those impractical and silly rules. After all, if a guy smokes for 50 years and then his widow sues the tobacco company sucessfully because they didn't tell him when he started he might get lung cancer- what does that tell you about the silly and increasingly silly world we have created?

Having said all that, there are quite a number of 
H&S rules - most of which are common sense- which have and still are being ignored by individuals on the basis of: " we're not daft you know - not children. We've been doing it this way for years" etc. All of you know exactly what I mean. 
Perhaps all this excess of regulation is the result of a combination of the attitudes of such egotists and their arogant stupidity together with the cost-cutting actions of certain employers.

As it says in the 'good book' - as ye sew - so shall ye reap'.

The sad thing about all these rules is that they have been concocted by individuals with axes to grind. Owners, Insurers, Politicians and last but not least - Trade Union Officials.

When ere you asked by any of these for your opinion?


----------



## Nick Balls (Apr 5, 2008)

JimC. Great post. 
Exactly the problem. A ship is a work place but it is also a home. My earlier post shows how we now stand legally. The problem is that little bit where it says " On duty" On duty we are bound up to rules very similar to the road driving law (UK) . But when are we "On duty" and "Off duty" ?
Modern shipping operations have very small crews. It could be said that most of the crew are in fact "On duty" 24 hours a day. This is in relation to this present law. They could be asleep and "Off duty" BUT in the event of an emergency they would have a specific responsibility . Therfore they would be under the eyes of the law be "On duty" 
This is a terrible situation and should never have happened. Just look at it! Its called the "Transport and Railways Act 2003" for Christ's sakes. NO Mention of ships !!!!!
Everyone I know who goes to sea hates this law. It is in fact against human rights. 
Two massive problems face shipping. One is Fatigue the other stress.
Providing good accommodation and allowing seafarers to lead a normal life without fear of criminalization by these type of draconian measures is becoming top priority.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Nick,
It is the opinion of the USCG than anyone actually signed onto a ship is always on duty, regardless of whether they are or not actively on duty or at rest, indeed also whether they're onboard or ashore! 
A couple of years ago the MCA went after a Supply boat Master here in Aberdeen after they breathalysed him on the quayside one evening whilst he was walking back to his ship after a run ashore. The opinion of the MCA was that as Master he's never off duty, despite the fact he physically wasn't on the ship and it was entrusted to the C/O! This vessel wasn't due to sail for a couple of days and wasn't working cargo.
NUMAST made all sorts of noises about it but I never did hear of the outcome.


----------



## Klaatu83 (Jan 22, 2009)

Time was that a ship put into port where the crew could actually walk ashore to the nearest pub. However, the sort of ports we put into these days, there generally isn't much opportunity to get a drink. It's usually miles to the gate and then, once you get there, as often as not there's nothing there. On top of that, most ships are only in for a few hours, so nobody has the time to go ashore. Of course it may be different with supply boats but, from my experience, that's the way things are with tankers and box-boats.


----------



## Nick Balls (Apr 5, 2008)

Yep everybody has been saying the same thing over and over again. 
I am now out of things and so can say precisely what I like regarding these matters.
I think it is a very serious problem. 
Jim, Aberdeen would be a good example. A hard life and in the winter one that demands that people are allowed to relax in thier "off" time. First problem is even getting off the ship!!!! Having to ware the PPE across the base and then having no proper changing facilities at the gate !!! 
Having got that far you are now (Theoretically) facing being stopped by the police at any time and getting breathalyzed. This could happen ! you might not even be thinking of having a single pint .BUT just because you are signed on , you are deemed to be "On duty" This can't be right. If we treat people like this they will respond accordingly. Taking responsibility for yourself is something that here in the UK we have seen disappearing across society.
Seafarers have always taken responsibility for them selfs . That is the very nature of the job. 
The problem that I have seen emerging from this "modern" attitude is hidden.
Stress levels in many seafaring jobs have risen hugely over recent times.
You can not just make a law like this without doing much more to compensate for its imposition. Making a ship a home these days has never been harder. Much more needs to be done to provide adequate facilities if we are to be incarcerated on them. Im sure some deep sea vessels have some of these requirements but many modern vessels , while having "nice" accommodation do not have adequate arrangements to improve peoples lives. 
Sometimes even simple things have a great effect. Fitting a basket ball hoop up, providing a library , free E mail, .............However much more needs to be done.
It is quite scandalous that we are damaging peoples health seriously , by the very H & S regulations (Gone mad) that were supposed to make people "safe" 
I have seen some very stressed out people at sea and having read the report on Fatigue by cardiff university I can see that we are all shortening our life span by working on some of these vessels.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

The great (sick) joke about the whole thing is that whilst your ship is in port where you can actually get ashore, is not working cargo but simply laying by, you can be breathalysed and prosecuted even when enjoying a few pints ashore. 
What of all those coastal ships where the crews go home for the weekend? Since they're technically signed on at all times, the could quite legally be 'done' by the Authorities even if they were on a night out at home in London, yet their ship is in Aberdeen and they weren't due to return onboard for a couple of days. Crazy!
Yet when at sea, if the culture onboard suits it, a crewman can get legless 24/7 and actively engage in his duties, yet unless the Old Man breathalyses him then there is no comeback.
How does any of that make sense?
I've seen it before on plenty of ships that because the lads aren't able to let off steam ashore, they simply do it onboard when at sea instead. How is that safe?
You can't go ashore, you can't have a drink, you're away for months with limited contact with home, working ever longer hours, regulated to the hilt, filling in paperwork like its going out of fashion, wages which have come DOWN in relative terms over the years, you're ever fearful of being replaced by cheap labour and of course should you make a mistake the chances are you'll either be sent down or imprisoned without charge for an unspecified length of time.
*Yet the Govt and the Shipping Companies are united in their bewilderment as to why nobody wants to go to or stay at sea!
*You couldn't make it up...
(Cloud)


----------



## JimC (Nov 8, 2007)

Let's take it to the ultimate lads.

I believe that under the UK licencing laws it is an offence for a landlord to continue to serve alcohol to a person or persons who are -to use the old word - 'drunk'. Might not this law be extended to include 'and who serves alcohol to a seafarer on duty' ?
Why not by-pass the crew members and Master and go straight for the throat (or pocket) of the Publican who holds the liquor license? After all, if a seafarer is considered as a child or person under the age of 18 why not enforce the law properly? An amended law might read:

"It is an offence for a seafarer on duty or any person under the age of 18 to buy or attempt to buy any intoxicating liquor or beverage. It is also an offence for anyone to buy or attempt to buy any intoxicating liquor or beverage for young persons under the age of 18 or for a seafarer or seafarers who are deemed to be on duty. 
Ext.(a): These regulations are intended to include all Police Service, 
Fire Service, Ambulance Service and military personnel of all 
ranks and also unclude taxi drivers and drivers of hearses".

The mind boggles!

Having said all that, there is a case for the master and crew of a vessel which is on stand by and may be mobilsed at a moment's notice to be sober and as well rested as possible during the stand by period. More especially so when owners are allowed to criminaly underman their ships by the very people who impose these seemingly silly regs on poor old jack-tar.
That tiredness and undermanning aggravated by a thick tongue and even thicker head is what'll make your wive's and sweethearts forever lonely and your children fatherless.

I'ts a very unfair, selfish greedy world we live in, becoming more and more selfish by the minute. We are all to blame in various measures for the predicament we now find ourselves in. Sad but true.


----------



## ROBERT HENDERSON (Apr 11, 2008)

I was Master on some of Everard's new ships, not so palatial as the accommodation as the big bulkers, but never the less good bey a lot of standards. I had a comfortable day-room with my own television separate from my sleeping berth. The crew were in single berth cabins with their own toilets and shower. The communal mess room was designed such as one end we had easy chairs and a settee, with television and DVD player, we also had a library of our own making.
Take one particular voyage as an example ( there were others similar).
I have worked watch and watch with the Mate from a French port in the Bay of Biscay, in the Dover Strait we ran into dense fog which as well as the Mate required my presence on the bridge. The approach to the Wandelaar pilot station is a hell of a nerve wracking experience in fog.We embark the Pilot with no problems, the fog begins to clear. but all the river pilots are stuck on outward bound ships or inward bound ships ahead of me, I am given a choice on anchoring in Flushing Roads or doing my own pilotage with VTS assistance. I choose the latter. must keep my owners happy.
I enter the Krushkin (spelling) locks and am stuck there for about 2 hours dealing with customs and immigration officials.
The locks open and now I pilot my own ship through the Antwerp dock system to the berth, now the bloody agent decides to turn up.
Hooray, Hooray, no loading until mid day next day, so I have a shower, have my evening meal and sit in my comfortable day room for while, but I am still in my work environment. I have never been a heavy drinker, but I now decide to get of the bloody ship for a while, I meet people in a family type bar, I have a few drinks. not staggeringly drunk but just enough to put me over the limit if breathalysed. What criminal act have I committed? What was so wrong that I felt I needed a break, just for a few hours and faced my duties next day with vigour and enthusiasm.
As I see it most of the boffins that think up these regulations have never been to sea, nor have they held positions of responsibility.

Regards Robert


----------



## Nick Balls (Apr 5, 2008)

Good points Robert. I was one of those that took part in the full survey for Cardiff University with regard to Fatigue at sea. I was working the Northen North sea at the time on the bog standard 84Hr week + when needed. 
Nothing would be nicer than to sink the occasional pint !!! Nothing could be more benifical to my health ! But the powers that be say this is all history.
Terrible !


----------

