# ship inspections



## borderreiver (Oct 11, 2008)

Found the following
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/ar...tools-project-for-shipping-safety-inspections.
feel we have become inspection based industry each time a tanker berths up come the inspectors. I had one time 5 different teams pulling the ship and crew to pieces. most thing they find I had not put a position on the chart when I am only a few feet of the berth.


----------



## Ian Brown (Jun 25, 2008)

I read through your link mentioned in post #1 and could not find any mention of the impact of these inspections on the ships crews.
All quite depressing and will add to the present disincentives to making a career at sea.
Where are the proposals to reduce the paper/computer work onboard?
Where are the proposals to reduce the in port work load where working the cargo becomes almost a secondary occupation?
It is as you say a parasite industry with no apparent checks or balances from the shipboard/owner side.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Ian,

DNVGL have recently published a league table of PSC defects. Much to my surprise (so much so that I mad a rare gaff) I missed that No.2 was emergency electrical supply.

I expected it to be missed due to PSC being unlikely to carry out testing required to reveal hidden failures (ie. Load test with MSB disconnected) of the type we have always missed with a "does it start on Saturday two different ways" approach.

No.2 as actual defect astonishes me as much as it would have made me suspicious if absent from the list.

What is your memory of how PSC (not class on routine survey) would normally test the emergency power supply?

David V


----------



## Tony Morris (Oct 7, 2006)

These days is is normally quite easy to test the emergency power supply. Inside the ESB there is a switch that disconnects the transition breakers between the ESB / MSB simulating a black-out leaving the main power on MSB to run the ship without problems, then just load up the emergency generator with the pumps etc to show that it can handle what ever load PSC require. In my last outfit we tested this every 3 months as part of the PMS.

Tony


----------



## callpor (Jan 31, 2007)

Ian Brown said:


> I read through your link mentioned in post #1 and could not find any mention of the impact of these inspections on the ships crews.
> All quite depressing and will add to the present disincentives to making a career at sea.
> Where are the proposals to reduce the paper/computer work onboard?
> Where are the proposals to reduce the in port work load where working the cargo becomes almost a secondary occupation?
> It is as you say a parasite industry with no apparent checks or balances from the shipboard/owner side.


I totally agree Ian. I read the entire paper and also am concerned at the lack of impact on ship's crews. It's as if they don't exist?

I was particular interested to read of this project (and the cost to the taxpaper!) as I am currently preparing a Seminar on the subject of Vessel Inspection Regimes for a course in Copenhagen next month.

In that Seminar I will be quoting from the findings of a similar study conducted at Erasmus University in Rotterdam and published By Dr Sabine Knapp in 2006. She and her colleagues concluded after analysis of years of data from results of mainly Port & Flag state Inspections that they resulted in only a marginal improvement in the safety record across vessels in the entire world fleet. One has to ask, is it worth it? 

The only inspections that do show a very significant reduction in incidents and improvement in standards on vessels, are those on oil & chemical tankers and gas carriers initiated by the oil major and petrochemical charterers (SIRE & CDI) over the past 21 years.

Still an imposition on the crews whoever conducts the inspection. Ship owners/operators should take account of this by adding additional officers or Superintendents in port to manage the inspections whilst the crew go about their day to day tasks and comply with hours of work and rest regulations.


----------



## Ian Brown (Jun 25, 2008)

In reply to #3

David, good to hear from you.
I hope you are enjoying a good summer in that wonderful house of yours. 

With PSC inspections, my experience latterly was fairly benign as after multiple Oil/Gas Major inspections, the PSC was fairly easy.
On the LNG ships I was on I was blessed with great Chief Engineers so it was relatively rare to have any observations in that department and I don't recall any with EPS issues. So I was surprised also to see this as #2 most common.

DNV have a very good synopsis of PSC issues at http://www.dnv.com/binaries/report psc lowres_tcm4-515667.pdf
but EPS doesn't seem to be big problem with their data.

My complaint is not in an inspection regime which I believe did raise our game but in the way it grown into a mass of different bodies all doing their own slightly different and apparently mutually unacceptable inspections.

It seems to me that the 'traditional' class certificates which sufficed 30 years ago should have been upgraded and made universally acceptable. But they all became degraded when the rush for cheapest Class forced even the best Class Societies to compromise their standards. (I expect some flack for that statement but that was my experience)


----------



## Ian Brown (Jun 25, 2008)

Hello Callpor.

Glad to hear you concur.

My experience was those vessels inspected by Oil Majors so I would agree that in that area, the Inspection Regime did improve standards. 
Having said that, I believe they would have improved anyway under the 'Traditional' Companies I worked for.
But that World has gone and is not coming back.
My problem is this vast inspection industry has no natural predator to keep it in check as the Ship Owners are always going to go along with what the Oil Majors demand. 
Seafarers who bear the brunt of it have no means to readdress the balance.
Can you imagine if the found the airliner you were flying on was having the Air Industry equivalent of a PSC while you were onboard.


----------



## callpor (Jan 31, 2007)

Ian Brown said:


> Hello Callpor.
> 
> Glad to hear you concur.
> 
> ...


@Ian,

We just have to keep fighting their corner?


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Ian, Many thanks. I'll look at that, strange the data doesn't seem to agree.

I couldn't agree more on the bow to the potential client right or wrong. This is not a fashion house and needs to be a safe one. We have the requirement to have interswitched radars. A requirement from their own procedures there for one reason only. To allow the Federal SeaScouts to be fooled into thinking a vessel had two working radars when there weren't! - who has ever seen their own procedures for safe operation interswitched (PRF and pulse length incompatible between some ranges etc.). A hobby horse of course, as you know.

Steve (younger walking partner with KO's husband) has just completed coating the pile in Acrypol - hopefully a little less damp this winter. Broad bean crop very poor - strange cool Summer but mostly fine. About time you both came for a visit.

At least in the Diamond D we lobbied at Flag level via GCBS. I could never find out at BS if any part of the organisation were members of national Chamber, let alone if they did any lobbying (David F and his team thrashed here at Croquet last weekend return match 8/8).


----------



## OilJiver (Jun 30, 2014)

Re: Thread.

Fully agree with all comments re increased administrative load on shipboard management in (relatively) recent years. BUT, I’d sooner have this to contend with than be back where we were, even only a couple of decades ago. Fact.

Picking up on a couple of points made in preceding posts. We all know, many PSC detention deficiencies can make remarkable reading. Examples frequently detail major failings of SOLAS equipment (including those previously noted). Whether due to equipment failure or lack of operator knowledge, surely no one could question such being ship stoppers (until rectified). Such failures are rightly listed as ISM related items. And I guess it’s the relatively recent implementation (and broader application) of the ISM code that seems to add so much to the admin burden.

But what’s the alternative? The ISM code is there to ensure that Ship Management organisations must have a Safety (& Environmental) Management System in place. Amongst other things, what that system does, is to effectively tie all the Class/Statutory requirements together. All the stuff that has been evolving for years and years in light of, incidents, changes in technology, changes in global cir***stances, on-going changes in legislation. Just look at the evolution of SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW, MLC etc. Stuff always changes. Stuff always will change. But change in international maritime legislation could hardly be described as knee jerk. United Nations agencies aren’t equipped to operate at that kind of pace. 

For sure there are many driving mechanisms for such changes. But whatever your take on it, all of this stuff is there for us. Many people seem to misunderstand the role of Class, often with the assumption that a Certificate of Class is some sort of certificate of seaworthiness. It isn’t. If any such thing existed, I would count it as being the Ships Safety Management Certificate (accompanied by copy of Organisation’s DOC). I guess the role of Class might seem unclear in part due to their provision of statutory services on behalf of Flag Administrations. (ISM Code compliance verification being an example).

For us at the business end of things, there’s no getting away from the fact that ISM Code compliance issues have increased our administrative burden. But what it hasn’t done is to change the responsibilities of Master and Chief Engineer. What it HAS done is change responsibilities of the ship management organisation. Big style.

None of this stuff comes from nowhere. Most here will have read the Inquiry report into The Herald of Free Enterprise disaster at some time or other. If not seen for a while, read it again with a 2015 perspective. Enough said I think.

So, ship inspections – one big pain in the backside for all of us. And of course, they won’t prevent every disaster that might occur (some areas more so than others). But we need all this stuff and that’s a fact. There’ll be plenty of sceptics out there, but if the HOFE disaster happened today, I doubt that the Master would shoulder much (if any) of the blame. (Not in this country anyway). The central objectives of the ISM Code require systems to be in place which, aside all else, can provide us with better means to defend ourselves, should the unthinkable occur. 

As correctly noted by callpor, (# 5), the main problem with all of this is that of resourcing (on our side of the fence anyway). We know that that issue isn’t likely to be resolved any time soon. So I don’t know what the answer is. But on balance, I’d far rather be where we are now than where we were even just a couple of decades ago.


----------



## borderreiver (Oct 11, 2008)

Yes but on small gas ships running from Mongstad to Antwerp. The master has to be on the bridge when crossing the traffic lanes. pilot pick up and all the way up the Scheldt . through the locks and along side. including waits for pilots, tugs and locks. working hours are already out of the window. Then the inspectors arrive with the agent. being a gas ship working for a great company very few defects are found. but an inspectors has to find some to justify his job.
company inspectors work very hard to make sure ships doNOT have defects and crew work correctly.and train the crew.
The longest job is checking the ships certificates and now the crew certificates. Most of us files 2inch thick of different certs all which must be in date. By the time all this finished it time to sail and again no rest. no chance for crew to go ashore for basic shopping .


----------



## willincity (Jul 11, 2007)

borderreiver said:


> Yes but on small gas ships running from Mongstad to Antwerp. The master has to be on the bridge when crossing the traffic lanes. pilot pick up and all the way up the Scheldt . through the locks and along side. including waits for pilots, tugs and locks. working hours are already out of the window. Then the inspectors arrive with the agent. being a gas ship working for a great company very few defects are found. but an inspectors has to find some to justify his job.
> company inspectors work very hard to make sure ships doNOT have defects and crew work correctly.and train the crew.
> The longest job is checking the ships certificates and now the crew certificates. Most of us files 2inch thick of different certs all which must be in date. By the time all this finished it time to sail and again no rest. no chance for crew to go ashore for basic shopping .


Which inspections are there in Antwerp?
Are they every visit to Antwerp?
"Inspectors HAVE to find something to justify their job" again which inspectors are they?
Cannot SIRE/CDI inspections not be carried out in Norway?
Why must the Master show all the Certificates every visit to Antwerp?
If there is "no rest periods " then the v/l is not in compliance with "rest/work" regulations surely? (that's the first observation strait away)

I'm not having a pop at you borderreiver as I don't doubt your comments but there is another side to your tail of woe and may be the "great company" you mention should be looking at this as a High Risk situation especially the lack of rest periods.
Who is going to defend the Master if his ship clatters another vessel or a grounding on the R Scheldt after he's leaves the lock? 
The "Great Company" won't because they have manuals with 100's of procedures and I'm sure there is a cleverly worded statement in there that references crew rest hours.


----------



## callpor (Jan 31, 2007)

willincity said:


> Which inspections are there in Antwerp?
> Are they every visit to Antwerp?
> "Inspectors HAVE to find something to justify their job" again which inspectors are they?
> Cannot SIRE/CDI inspections not be carried out in Norway?
> ...


 Well said Willincity! The Master should record an SMS Non-Conformance each time this occurs and then involve the company DPA. Even a Note of Protest to the Inspector with copy to OCIMF or CDI? The solution lies with the Master.


----------



## willincity (Jul 11, 2007)

It has to be remembered that it's the ships operator/manager that request CDI /OCIMF inspections, they select the port/date/eta, etc.
We all recognise the fact that its a long old drag into the port of Antwerp and with such swift turn arounds of "smaller" vessels then the operator must/should be aware of the issues when arranging assessments.
Likewise the Master has the right to postpone/cancel these inspections at any time on the grounds of rest periods/shipboard operation, the Inspectors have been invited to attend the ship so its not as if they just rock up at the gangway. 
Of course very few Old Men would have the balls to cancel or stand up to some commercial operator sat comfortably behind his desk who has not considered this or perhaps not given a toss about the fatigue issues involved.


----------



## borderreiver (Oct 11, 2008)

On these particular voyages it is the master hours which go out of the window. One case when held off the lock awaiting a berth with tugs bow and stern. this cause crew hours to exceed we requested to stay in the lock until the hours were back up. This caused some eye browns up. The water police come involved and gave permission to exceed the hours. They also criticised the port control for allowing this long wait.
These small ships are at times only just break even. if the owners can get all the oil company's passed sire then they get a better rate. . This has to be done every 6 months.Some oil company's see the sire reports and will not inspect.
Some oil companys have there own inspections out side sire
Then PSI inspection. P and I inspection plus company inspection.
As with most management company it is the owners who organise the inspections so this out of the mangers hands. Management will ask for no inspections when there is a change of command.
In Norway you get state inspection and statoil inspection.
For my self I would do the paper work with the inspector and let the chief officer do the rounds with inspector so I could some rest.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Not just on small ships either. I know of two Masters (friends) on much larger ships who were both threatened with dismissal for taking their respective ships to anchor for a few hours after punishing port turnarounds which both involved the circus/sick joke that is SIRE and PSC. One was openly threatened by satellite phone, the other hauled into the office to explain himself and told of the dire consequences for his long term future with that outfit should he take such action without receiving explicit permission from HQ, even though in that case he forewarned the ship operators concerned via email of his intentions as himself and a number of others would be out of hours. All of this in total contravention of the internal SMS and indeed the HOR regulations of course, but in the eyes of the company their day rate was at stake.
One in Rotterdam, the other in Singapore - the latter after the usual discharge/tank clean/load/cross harbour/discharge nonsense.
One with an oil major, the other with one of the top players amongst the charter operators.
The brainwashed oil industry masses may struggle to believe this, but no matter who you work for, at the end of the day the SMS and this myriad of inspections are merely an **** covering paperwork exercise designed to protect the companies and restrict their liabilities, they're certainly not for the benefit of the staff.
Money will always triumph over all.


----------



## OilJiver (Jun 30, 2014)

All comes down to personal experience Jim. My comments (made on balance) were in light of events that I’d sooner not contend with again.


----------

