# ISPS (THE International Ship and Port Security Code)



## John Campbell (Aug 30, 2005)

A couple of months ago I and and another old sea dog decided to have a walk along the quay in Aberdeen to have a look at a new ship which had berthed. We were prevented from doing so by the ISPS Code and I was happy to read the following blog in today's LLoyds List.



*Security sham
By Marcus Hand *Friday 21 August 2009

THE International Ship and Port Security Code was designed to protect maritime assets from being used by terrorists to smuggle in weapons or people, or the vessels themselves being used as weapons of mass destruction. 

The ISPS code may have worked in terms of procedures at ports and have had the unwelcome side-effect of making shore leave and getting off the vessel more difficult, but in terms of securing vessels themselves, it is hard to see what has been achieved. 

The last year or so has seen, off the coast of Somalia, the most serious spate of hijacking of vessels in modern times. 

The code — essentially a piece of bureaucracy — is not much use when pirates, armed to the teeth, are firing at the bridge of your vessel. 

It has been suggested that seafarers try throwing the ISPS files at the pirates, but the simple reality is that the code does nothing to really secure vessels. 

The ISPS code cannot even stop a couple of pirates in Southeast Asia in wooden boats armed with knives from boarding and robbing a ship. 

If one also takes the threat of using maritime assets as a weapon, the code has surely failed, as it in no ways stops armed and determined individuals boarding a vessel. 

Despite the huge amount of time and cost spent on the code, in almost all cases the real security of the vessel is left to its crew.


----------



## 6283 (Feb 3, 2009)

Any seaman worth his salt could have told the author, Mr. Marcus Hand, that years ago. The same applies to the ISM.
As in most new rules and regs for those of us on the ships, the ISPS is just another way for the shore side types to get their tickets punched with the least cost and inconvenience (for themselves!).


----------



## vasco (Dec 27, 2007)

6283 said:


> Any seaman worth his salt could have told the author, Mr. Marcus Hand, that years ago. The same applies to the ISM.
> As in most new rules and regs for those of us on the ships, the ISPS is just another way for the shore side types to get their tickets punched with the least cost and inconvenience (for themselves!).


Possibly very true about ISPIS, it has made all our lives a misery. The times I get pulled up because a Company Rep came on board without being challenged(this on an 8 crew ship in a secure port) beggars belief. I have now got a standard answer -- You know the problem, no men, I was preventing cargo overflowing with the only available watchman. You should know your companys regulations and wait at the gangway until invited on board.

The ISM is a different matter. It is a pain in the butt and would certainly add to the armoury as suggested in the lloyds article above. It does, though, finally put the onus on the owner to recognise faults and act responsible, which is something my outfit does in any case.


----------



## Nick Balls (Apr 5, 2008)

Anyone working on merchant ships will tell you that until some serious money is spent on security then ISPS with regard to port security is a waste of time. The simple fact that the "Buck" got passed all the way down the line from IMO to the AB on deck says it all. The top brass have long since lost touch with the reality of modern shipping and manning. So much gibberish on this subject has been spoken in the last few months it defies believe!!! Aberdeen is a classic example ....... Ask anyone who works on the vessels there what they think. Good security measures could easily be put in place on the majority of ordinary merchant vessels . Indeed some already have this in place. The bottom line is you need to spend money from the bottom up. What happens at present is massive legislation is wined and dined from afar . This has produced a ludicrous system that is non too efficient. It all ends up as a paper exercise. Crazy !!!! 

ISM can be brilliant.............BUT again having seen some different systems the common factor is again the over use of legislation leading to a crazy top heavy waste of time type animal. The best systems are where great effort has been taken to produce a concise practical guide.. This has been done by a few companies , yet we still see the bridge book shelves decorated by the 40 Manual system. This is in complete breach of the concept. The Master and C/E working all day to tick boxes is not the idea. I had the great pleasure in seeing a Norwegian ISM in place that consisted of one manual and a CD .............Gentleman what happened!!!! The ISM book is a tiny little publication , yet many companies end up with this incomprehensible mass of conflicting information!!!!! Self inflicted by those that don't do the work .


----------



## vasco (Dec 27, 2007)

Nick Balls said:


> I had the great pleasure in seeing a Norwegian ISM in place that consisted of one manual and a CD .............Gentleman what happened!!!! The ISM book is a tiny little publication , yet many companies end up with this incomprehensible mass of conflicting information!!!!! Self inflicted by those that don't do the work .


We had that, then got pulled up because not all the crew had thefacilities to read a cd, ie computer in every cabin! The fact there was a public computer did not matter. No pleasing. Then off course we have to file all the permit to works, garbage receipts, risk assessment etc. And then we have to write a weather report every 4 hours in the compass error book to explain why there was no error taken in a howling gale and it goes on and on...........


----------



## 6283 (Feb 3, 2009)

Bravo Vasco and Nick Balls! You both appear to have achieved the ISM and ISPS goals!
YOUR SHIPS ARE NOW SAFE!!!
And if someone (for instance, the supposedly unbiased classification society inspector, LOL) doesn't believe you, you can show them the thousands of forms, checklists, permits, log entries, etc. that you and your shipmates aboard your short-handed vessel have completed and diligently filed away.
You are now so safe that you are bordering on being unsafe! And you can prove it.
The last thing the IMO got right was the 72 COLREGS. Since then, it's been downhill all the way.


----------



## vasco (Dec 27, 2007)

and of course, even the officials call it by its nickname, ISPISS, now that was well thought out wasn't it.

and another one - we have plates bolted to the deck with 100 nuts, well painted and a security sign on them forbidding entry!


----------



## jeraylin (Feb 2, 2008)

VASCO - you are soooooo right. I'm expecting an ISPS implementation audit in a shipyard for a new build - it will be done in the office. Any terrorist of old had to at least call the agents or look in the paper to see when a ship was arriving - now all they have to do is buy a AIS receiver and they can see next port, eta, no of people on board, position course and speed etc etc. Now we are fitted with LRIT they have weeks to plan their attack! All this has done is provide an excuse to stop seafarers getting ashore - in Singapore it is virtually impossible to get ashore between the hours of 2200 and 0600 if you are berthed anywhere near gate 1 as the immigration office shuts down there and no buses run to gate 2 (for seafarers anyway).
Makes me laugh - I've been a seafarer for 31 years and pirates have been getting on board all over the shop. I once asked IMO how many REAL seafarers are employed at Embankment - still waiting an answer. I mean which muppet decided my 265metre vessel only needs 2 BA sets????????


----------



## Bill Davies (Sep 5, 2007)

I have always thought of the code as a 'knee jerk' reaction to the US pressure following 9/11. It was badly thought out and rushed through IMO.


----------



## ray bloomfield (Oct 31, 2007)

Bill Davies said:


> I have always thought of the code as a 'knee jerk' reaction to the US pressure following 9/11. It was badly thought out and rushed through IMO.




Never thought this would ever happen but I must agree with Bill on this

There is no need to buy an AIS receiver, log on to one of many free sites.


----------



## Alistair Macnab (May 13, 2008)

And what about the army of 'officials' that board a ship on arrival? Who checks their credentials? And as for the longshoremen. I can just imagine some new 3/M from a Third World country stopping each boarding worker for his TWIC card in the USA and its equivalent (if there is one?) everywhere else!


----------



## Billieboy (May 18, 2009)

Being completely ignorant of this new load of bollox, I have to assume that the idiots have taken over the asylum again!


----------



## Duncan112 (Dec 28, 2006)

jeraylin said:


> VASCO - you are soooooo right. I'm expecting an ISPS implementation audit in a shipyard for a new build - it will be done in the office. Any terrorist of old had to at least call the agents or look in the paper to see when a ship was arriving - now all they have to do is buy a AIS receiver and they can see next port, eta, no of people on board, position course and speed etc etc. Now we are fitted with LRIT they have weeks to plan their attack! All this has done is provide an excuse to stop seafarers getting ashore - in Singapore it is virtually impossible to get ashore between the hours of 2200 and 0600 if you are berthed anywhere near gate 1 as the immigration office shuts down there and no buses run to gate 2 (for seafarers anyway).
> Makes me laugh - I've been a seafarer for 31 years and pirates have been getting on board all over the shop. I once asked IMO how many REAL seafarers are employed at Embankment - still waiting an answer. I mean which muppet decided my 265metre vessel only needs 2 BA sets????????


I used to suggest that a minimum requirement for employment in any decision making capacity by the IMO should be 10 years sea service, this after seeing a IMO magazine that appeared to consist solely of photographs of Bill O'Neill glad handing his way round dinner parties - 

Similarly the charge towards ISM appeared to be led by one gentleman that now makes a large amount of money from training videos that enable one to say that you have carried out the training element of the code. Sometimes I thought the Walport trailers were more apposite than this.


----------



## surfaceblow (Jan 16, 2008)

The last ship I was on the powers to be wanted a lock cage around the bunkering, water and sewage connections that would prevent some one from putting items into the piping systems that may harm the personnel and ship. This was to be part of the ISPS for the company. I went to the local auto supply store and bought a hand full of the tire locking nuts and studs and put two locking nuts on each flange plus the normal fasteners. When I got back to the states I was told that the locks could be broken. When I asked about the cage with one lock I was told to mind my own business.


----------



## 6283 (Feb 3, 2009)

Bill Davies said:


> I have always thought of the code as a 'knee jerk' reaction to the US pressure following 9/11. It was badly thought out and rushed through IMO.


You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately your opinion is also a knee jerk reaction to 9/11.


----------

