New guide to marine insurance
Marine safety checklist re-issued to Members
Ivory Coast customs
Stowaways in the United States
Yellow fever certification in Brazil
Stowaways in China
UK passenger liability and Athens convention
Bogus invoices in Dakar
Tightness testing of hatches using ultrasonic equipment
Two little words that can alter the whole ICA!
Congenbill clauses upheld in court
South Africa – arrests caused by nominee shareholders
New Chinese contract law clarifies liabilities for delay and delivery
Liability for un-seaworthiness
Bridge resource management
Russia introduces new merchant shipping code
New loss prevention poster series
Black boxes
Ballast water management
Australian ballast water requirements
New bulk carrier safety rules
Mariner and Maritime Law seminar 10
North of England training in the Far East
SWAPP 15 - onboard training poster released
New staff
Quiz Winners
London office
Signals Swot Quiz
New guide to marine insurance
Members and entered ships will receive with this issue of Signals a complimentary copy of The Mariner’s Guide to Marine Insurance, the latest in North of England’s series of loss prevention guides.
For many, both ashore and on board ship, marine insurance and P&I in particular is in part a mystery and in part confusing. In this new book published by the Nautical Institute, North of England’s loss prevention manager, Captain Phil Anderson - who is also vice president of the Nautical Institute - guides the mariner and other interested parties through the different types of maritime insurance.
The ultimate aim of the book is to help Masters and other mariners, understand better how they can assist in preventing accidents and claims arising in the first place and how best to protect shipowner’s interests if incidents do occur. The guide is intended to serve as a companion volume to The Mariner’s Role in Collecting Evidence the most successful book the Nautical Institute has ever published.
Often it is not clear what risks and liabilities fall under H&M cover and what fall to be covered under P&I. Say for example, a cargo runner wire breaks resulting in a steel coil, which was being loaded as cargo, falling to the deck injuring a stevedore and putting a hole in the deck plating. Which insurers are likely to be involved? Who should be contacted? What can those on board do to minimise the loss and protect the shipowner’s and insurer’s positions?
The book will help the reader assemble the marine insurance ‘jig-saw’ puzzle and, by achieving a clearer overview of how marine insurance claims are dealt with, those on board will better appreciate the enormous contribution they can make to minimising the consequences of such incidents. By collecting the evidence and correctly preparing relevant reports, they will be able to provide the claims handlers ashore with the tools needed to deal with the claims in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible.
The publication explores the nature of marine insurance and the financial implication of claims and looks generally at the insurance requirements of shipowners, charterers and cargo owners. Before looking in more detail at H&M, P&I and FD&D insurance, the book considers some underlying principles of all marine insurance drawn primarily from the Marine Insurance Act of 1906.
A significant section of the guide is devoted to a case study which describes how claims are handled and how important the evidence is from the ship. In the final section Captain Anderson summarises his views, after more than 30 years at sea and working in P&I Clubs, on questions of causation in marine accidents and issues which will need to be addressed if accidents and claims are to be reduced.
Marine safety checklist re-issued to Members
The marine safety checklist Entry into Enclosed Spaces, which has been reproduced by North of England with permission of the British Chamber of Shipping, is once again re-issued to Members with this issue of Signals.
Some 12,000 of the checklists have been distributed to Members since 1994. They continue to provide excellent advice and safety recommendations to seafarers in
an attempt to reduce the ever-increasing death toll from incorrect procedures and practices being adopted when entering enclosed spaces.
The checklist – which details general precautions to be taken prior to entry into cargo spaces, pump rooms and other enclosed spaces – has been revised and reproduced to meet the demand from Members.
It also offers guidance on the protective equipment which should be worn when undertaking specific tasks.
Serious efforts have been made by many sectors of the shipping industry to raise awareness to the dangers of entering enclosed spaces. Whether as a result of real or perceived pressures, some seafarers continue to cut corners when entering enclosed spaces and gamble with their lives. The situation is clearly unacceptable yet it is the seafarers themselves who can do more than anyone to avoid accidents, injuries and fatalities.
Readers wishing to obtain more advice on safe entry into enclosed spaces are referred to Signals special edition No.1 of February 1997, North of England loss prevention guide Personal Injury Prevention – A Guide to Good Practice and the Code of Safe Working Practices for Merchant Seaman distributed by The Stationary Office in the UK.
For further information relating on the publications mentioned in this article, please contact the loss prevention department at the Association.
Ivory Coast customs
Customs authorities in the Ivory Coast are imposing very heavy penalties for even the most minor infractions. For instance, a master recently handed over his list of stores and realised that he had not declared bunkers on the declaration.
The customs officers flatly refused to hand the store list declaration back to the master for amendment, but insisted that the master declare bunker figures on a blank sheet of paper which he then had to sign and stamp in order to avoid possible arrest of his ship.
Once the ship sailed, the customs authorities issued an official report and are claiming payment of penalties of over US$500,000. This is obviously an extreme case, but it is by no means exceptional.
The Association knows of at least one other case where customs intend to impose a fine of US$660,000 against a ship simply because an arrival condition report was not signed and stamped by the master.
It is worth noting that under the customs statute book, 24% of fines are shared amongst the customs officers, which is a compelling reason for the customs officers to propose massive fines.
At this stage, the Association can only recommend that paperwork and documentation is checked extensively for any discrepancies and spare copies are retained to provide a defence for the allegations raised by customs officers.
Stowaways in the United States
The US Committee on Carrier Security is reviewing the rules by which US immigration authorities deal with stowaways. The final rule should be published later in the year but, in the meantime, the time period for which a ship owner will be held responsible for either a political asylum stowaway or non-political asylum stowaway is recommend not to exceed 15 business days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.
It appears that the US Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS) is to assume responsibility for the costs of detention once the 15 day period has passed. However, reports are that the INS is refusing to take custody of non-political asylum stowaways. Owners are being forced to maintain custody of such stowaways on board the ship permanently or have the stowaway remain on board until departure, at which time the INS will assume custody.
Members are advised that, until the final rule dealing with the removal of stowaways is put into effect, each situation will be looked at on a case by case basis. As always, Members should notify the Association promptly of any stowaways found on board, with details of the ship’s future ports of call and the agents in each port, in order that a decision can be made on how best to deal with the problem.
Yellow fever certification in Brazil
Most Members are probably aware of the regulations in Brazil regarding crewmembers requiring to be fully vaccinated against yellow fever and having proof of this vaccination before the ship is due to arrive in Brazil.
The reason for the Brazilians’ zealous fining of ships is due to the very real risk of yellow fever being spread from an infected person by mosquitos. However, crewmembers are not the only problem.
A Member’s ship recently found two stowaways on board after leaving Nigeria while en route to Santos in Brazil. Not
only did the Brazilian authorities quarantine the ship for several days, while the stowaways were vaccinated and allowed time for the vaccine to take effect, but fines were also imposed at the discretion of the port health authorities. These can range from approximately US$30,000 to US$120,000, although the authorities have a discretion to increase this amount almost at will and there is one suggestion that the fine would be approximately US$727,000.
The matter has yet to be resolved, but Members should be aware of the difficulties they can face either with crewmembers who are not vaccinated, or with stowaways who are very unlikely to have been vaccinated in the past and certainly will not be carrying certificates.
Stowaways in China
Chinese immigration authorities are now insisting that stowaways are declared prior to ships calling at port. If not, a penalty of RMB.10,000 (US$1,200) to RMB.30,000 (US$3,600) can be imposed. Should any stowaways escape and land illegally without a valid passport or emergency travel document, the penalty will be RMB.5,000 (US$600) to RMB.10,000 (US$1,200) per stowaway.
UK passenger liability and Athens convention
Members are reminded that, as of 1 January 1999, the passenger liability limitation for carriers, whose principal place of business is the United Kingdom, was increased by the UK government from SDR 100,000 (£86,000 approx) to SDR 300,000 (£257,000 approx).
For other carriers, (ie those without a principal place of business in the UK), who visit the UK; since the UK is still a signatory to the Athens convention, the limit remains SDR 46,666.
Bogus invoices in Dakar
A Member’s ship recently called at Dakar in order to land a sick crewmember. The Member was invoiced for approximately US$4,400 for services allegedly provided by Etablissment Senegalais D’Interventions, Division of General Cleansing Services, Hygenic Section of Sanitary, Port Works. The invoice even had a forged ship’s stamp on it and it was only the vigilance of the agent that prevented payment. Members should take extra care and advise their agents that they are aware of false invoices being issued in the port.
Tightness testing of hatches using ultrasonic equipment
Tightness testing of hatches with ultrasonic equipment has been in use in the marine industry since the early 1990s and has been steadily gaining acceptance. Procedures for ultrasonic hatch testing are now established by the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS). Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and other major classification societies have approved service supplier programmes.
The technique is very simple in its operation. An ultrasonic transmitter is placed inside the cargo hold or compartment to be tested. The operator uses a receiver which converts the ultrasonic signal to an audible level and measures the received signal strength. First the signal is measured with the hatch open to determine the ‘open hatch value’. Then, with the compartment secured, the operator passes the receiver around the seals of the hatch covers measuring any received signals. The limits and strength of received signals are marked on the hatch in chalk and subsequently recorded on a sketch. A hatch cover which is tight will not allow any received signal. The hatch cover is then opened and a close-up inspection made in order to analyse the source of the leakage indications.
Ultrasonic techniques are primarily used for hatch covers but have other uses, such as testing of oil tanker hatch openings, side shell doors, watertight bulkheads, access hatches, ventilation and grain loading ports. There are many circumstances where testing is required, as part of a steel pre-loading survey or for class and load line surveys for example.
There are many advantages to using ultrasonic techniques. The method is ‘clean’ and hatch covers may be tested with loaded cargo. Ultrasonic testing is precise and defective areas are clearly defined, making repair much easier and cheaper. The method is time efficient and non-labour intensive. Typically, most ships are completed at an average rate of 30 minutes per hatch, including set up time and completion of the rough report form. Once the hatch is secured, no assistance is required from the crew beyond normal safety requirements and a single operator can conduct the inspection. This keeps survey fees incurred to a lower level.
As use of the equipment becomes more widespread, suitably trained and certified surveyors are becoming more readily available. However, only class-approved operators should be used to ensure consistent application of the technique. They may be located from the various society directories.
Some masters and owners are concerned when advised that hatches will be tested using ultrasonic equipment. It would appear there are two main misconceptions regarding the technique.
(a) ‘The machine is too sensitive’. Only in extreme cases will the receiver detect the transmitted signal when the hatch cover is tight. With a proper procedure, this condition will either be avoided or reported to avoid incorrectly identifying leakage. Erroneous signal receipt may occur where optimum test conditions are not possible, such as when the transmitter is close below the hatch due to full cargo in the hold.
(b) ‘We only find leaks with that machine, never on a hose test’. Whichever method is chosen to test a hatch, then ultimately the results are dependent on the experience and diligence of the persons conducting the test. If a hatch has defects which would allow leakage, then this condition should be found by either method. The only difference is that, following a hose test, the precise location of the problem is usually very difficult to find, often causing unnecessary global replacement of gasket rubbers. In all cases it is important that the surveyor notes the physical condition of the hatches. Hatches which have severe corrosion problems or are not properly aligned / seated, should be noted as defective regardless of test results.
Examples of the value of the technique are many and include a recent case involving an instruction to test hatch covers on a modern open-hatch bulk carrier following a US$2 million claim for sea water contamination of a cargo of steel products. It was found that several minor areas of gasket were not making contact with the compression surface following recent repairs. The repairs were quickly completed by the crew and cost around $50. A proper test of the hatch covers prior to commencing the loaded voyage would have easily avoided the claim.
Ultrasonic testing of hatch covers is here to stay and will continue to grow in use. Shipowners should welcome its use as a valuable aid to loss prevention, which can also provide a cost-effective solution to solving the perennial problems of hatch cover tightness confirmation.
The Association is grateful to Kevin Highfield of London Offshore Consultants for submitting this article.
Two little words that can alter the whole ICA!
During recent months the Association has seen an increasing use of an amendment to the standard NYPE Charter Party which effectively makes owners potentially responsible for all cargo claims irrespective of whether or not the Inter-Club Agreement (ICA) has been specifically incorporated into the charterparty. Members should be aware of the significance and the consequences of agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment involves incorporating the words ‘cargo claims’ into clause 26 of the NYPE charterparty forms – which then reads:
“26. Nothing herein stated is to be construed as a demise of the ship to the Time Charterers. The owners to remain responsible for the navigation of the ship, cargo claims, crew, and all other matters, same as when trading for their own account."
Cargo claims – in some cases in excess of US$100,000 – which would normally be for charterer’s account would then legitimately be laid at owner’s door.
Although advantageous to charterers, such clauses should be strongly resisted by owners if possible but if they have been included then the master should be advised to be extra vigilant with the loading, stowing, dunnaging and tallying of the cargo and insist that all these operations are carried out to a degree whereby cargo damage and shortage claims will not arise.
If Members require further advice or guidance on this issue then they should not hesitate to contact the Association.
Congenbill clauses upheld in court
The Association was recently involved in a successful High Court decision on behalf of the owner of the Mata K which gives users of the Congenbill greater reliance on the ‘weight… unknown’ clause.
The plaintiffs were the shipper and charterer of the defendant owner’s ship Mata K under a voyage charter on an amended Fertivoy 88 form charterparty for the carriage of 25,000 MT (10% more or less in the owner’s opinion) of muriate of potash. A cargo of potash was shipped at Ventspils under three bills of lading each dated 31 December 1996. Total tonnage referred to on the bills of lading was 24,024.70 MT.
After loading the ship discharged at two ports in Korea and two ports in Japan. On final discharge in Japan it was discovered that there was a shortfall of approximately 2,705 MT under one bill of lading.
The relevant bill of lading was on the Congenbill form and signed by the plaintiffs on behalf of the defendant as carrier, with a figure of 11,000 MT under “gross weight” and in the “SHIPPED” box the printed endorsement “weight, measure, quality, quantity, condition, contents and value unknown”. The Hague Rules applied.
Two questions were considered by the High Court. Was the owner bound by the bill of lading quantity by virtue of the Hague Rules? Was the owner bound by the quantity shipped as stated on the bill by incorporation into the bill of a conclusive evidence clause contained in the charterparty?
Both were answered in the negative. A bill of lading qualified by the words “weight… quantity unknown” was not a “representation” that 11,000 MT were shipped. Any other conclusion would give no meaning to the expression “quantity unknown”.
The plaintiffs argued the bill of lading was prima facie evidence of the weight against the defendant under Article III rule 4 of the Hague Rules. A similar argument was, however rejected in the earlier case of Noble Resources Ltd v Cavalier Shipping Corporation (The Atlas) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 642. A bill of lading providing “weight… unknown” cannot be said to “show” weight and that, unless and until owners do show the weight loaded, the provisions of Article III rule 4 as to prima facie evidence cannot come into effect.
The decision is to be welcomed in that it clarifies the sparse previous authority and is also of benefit to Clubs and owners in being able to rely upon the printed form wording on the Congenbill. The decision would however have been different if the bill of lading did show the quantity shipped. For example, if the receiver could prove by reference to ship’s documents that the master in fact knew the quantity shipped, then the owners would be estopped from relying on the “weight… unknown” clause.
South Africa – arrests caused by nominee shareholders
Your nominee shareholder may cause you to suffer claims for which you are not liable simply by being a nominee shareholder of another principal, according to the South African Commercial Court of Appeal.
The recent decision arises out of the court’s interpretation of the legislation that permits an arrest of a ship in the “associated” ownership or control of the ship which actually owes the debt.
The court found that if the majority shareholding in company A, which owns ship A, is held by a nominee who also holds the majority shareholding, as nominee, in company B which owns ship B, ship A may be arrested for a debt due by the owner of ship B.
The logic of the decision is that nominee shareholders exercise direct control over the companies whereas the nominee's principal exercises indirect control and that the legislation concerned recognises both types of control as being sufficient.
It is consequently strongly recommended that all Members who rely on nominee shareholders in their company structures and trade to South Africa immediately review those structures to ensure that the nominee shareholders concerned are not also nominee shareholders of other companies.
With thanks to Garlicke & Bousfield, Durban.
New Chinese contract law clarifies liabilities for delay and delivery
The newly adopted contract law of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) introduces the principle of “reasonable foreseeability” into Chinese law to fix the scope of liabilities for delay and delivery.
The PRC Maritime Code of 1992 provides in the third paragraph of Article 50 that “The carrier shall be liable for the economic losses caused by delay and delivery of goods due to the fault of the carrier, even if no loss of or damage to the goods had actually occurred, unless such economic losses had occurred from causes for which the carrier is not liable as provided for in the relevant articles of this chapter.”
However, it has never before been settled law in China what the scope of such “economic losses” is. In some cases carriers have been held liable for all the economic losses caused by delay in delivery, including losses of interest, market, profits, shut down, liabilities for breach and so on. In other cases, only interest and loss of market have been treated as economic losses.
The uncertainty surrounding the liabilities of carriers was due to a lack of concrete provisions in Chinese law. This is expected to change when the new contract law comes into effect on 1 October 1999. It provides in Article 113 that ‘Where one party to a contract fails to perform the contractual obligations or its performance fails to satisfy the terms of the contract and causes losses to the other party, the amount of compensation for losses shall be equal to the losses caused by the breach of contract, including the interest receivable after performance of the contract, provided that they do not exceed the probable losses causes by the breach of contract which has been foreseen or to have been foreseen when the party in breach concluded the contract.’
It is common practice under Chinese law that the provisions of general laws, such as contract and civil laws, shall be applicable to matters for which there are no provisions in specific laws such as the Maritime Code.
Since there are no applicable criteria in relation to the scope of economic losses set out in the Maritime Code, the new provision in the contract law is expected to be applied to fixing the scope of liabilities for delay and delivery.
Whether or not a loss is ‘reasonably foreseeable’ will depend upon the facts of each case. Nevertheless, generally speaking, loss of market and interest, as well as loss of profits, shut down and liabilities for breach are commonly deemed to be foreseeable losses in China.
The Association is grateful to Mr Zhong Cheng of Wang Jing & Co for submitting this article.
Liability for un-seaworthiness
Members should be aware of a recent English High Court decision on the issue of liability for un-seaworthiness.
In the case of the “Imvros” (Transocean Lines Reederei - v - Euxine Shipping), the charterer was held liable for losses suffered when the ship was rendered un-seaworthy by the inadequate securing of a deck cargo of timber.
The charterer was responsible for the stowage of deck cargo under the charterparty, although lashing was to be carried out by the crew, but as the charterer’s servants. The owners had a right to intervene in the stowage but was not put in breach of its obligations of seaworthiness, limited in terms under the charterparty, by failing to do so.
Members should note that this decision, which is a special one on its own particular facts, does not necessarily provide an excuse for ignoring or turning a blind eye to apparent problems with the stowage of cargo, even where stowage is the responsibility of charterers.
Bridge resource management
In the July 1999 issue of Signals the lead article highlighted the importance of bridge team management and all Members and their entered ships were sent copies of the Bridge Procedures Guide.
The Association has since received a letter praising the virtues of good bridge resource management but from a slightly different perspective. Dennis B. McLennan is President and Chief Executive officer of the Pacific Pilotage Authority (PPA) based in Vancouver, B.C. which is responsible for the safe and efficient pilotage service on the West Coast of Canada. Mr McLennan explains that the PPA provides extensive training to all its pilots in bridge resource management techniques and asks for support in greater utilisation of these procedures. He explains:
“…In the last two years in the most serious incidents or near misses that were experienced on the West Coast of Canada, the lack of use or understanding of bridge resource management was a major contributing factor in each case – in bringing this factor to your attention, we solicit your support in encouraging all owners and operators within your sphere of responsibility to initiate and use bridge resource management on all of their ships…”
The Association wholeheartedly supports these sentiments and encourages all Members, masters and mariners to use and develop bridge team management skills wherever they may sail.
Russia introduces new merchant shipping code
On 1 May 1999 Russia formally brought into law its long-awaited new Merchant Shipping Code. It replaces the USSR Merchant Shipping Code of 1968, which was based on former soviet concepts of ownership, corporate structure and liability.
When the draft of the new code was being considered by the State Duma, in January 1999 Russia formally acceded to the 1952 Arrest Convention, the 1976 Convention on the Limitation of Liability (1996 Protocol) and the Hague Visby Rules as a preparatory measure. This influenced the content of the new code, such that Russian law is now generally more in line with international maritime law, in particular regarding the limitation of a carrier’s liability for loss or damage to cargo and the general limitation on shipowners’ liability for maritime claims.
The code runs to about 500 articles and time will tell exactly how the Russian courts will interpret the law. In the meantime, however, Members should take note that the code gives extensive powers to harbour masters and the maritime administrations to detain and arrest ships for a wide range of alleged violations and potential claims.
For more detailed information Members are encouraged to contact the Association.
The editor extends his thanks to Clyde & Co and the article prepared by Professor Valeriy Abramovich Musin - senior partner in Musin & Partners - Clyde & Co’s associated office in St. Petersburg and Trevor Barton. Thanks are also extended to Mr. George Lebedinsky of the Associations Correspondent NMC-NOSTRA in Novorossiysk for drawing attention to a number of these potential problem areas.
New loss prevention poster series
The Association actively encourages Members and their staff to offer ideas for loss prevention initiatives. Mr PK Yong of SAMTA Shipmanagement, Singapore, recently asked whether the Association could supply posters on pollution and drug / alcohol warnings for use on board. He suggested a number of specific topics such as
- preventing oil pollution
- discharge of oil prohibited
- warning about throwing garbage overboard
- drugs warning
- drugs trafficking warning
- warnings about drugs and alcohol
The last of the safe work accident prevention posters (SWAPP) series will be distributed at the end of this year and the Association has been deliberating over whether to develop a new series. Mr Yong’s timely suggestions will thus now form the basis of the new posters to be distributed to Members next year.
If other Members, and specifically seafarers, have suggestions for other topics they would like to see depicted in a loss prevention poster, please contact the loss prevention department at the Association.
Black boxes
A Member recently enquired asking about the current status of ‘black boxes’ on ships. To give them their more correct and official name, voyage data recorders (VDRs) – which are similar in principle to the ‘black boxes’ which have been carried in aircraft for many years - have been installed on the bridges of a number of ships participating in an experiment to consider their potential usefulness. The IMO has now decided
that VDRs should eventually become a mandatory requirement for ships.
In the summer 1999 issue of its newsletter Mariscene, the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) expressed general support for VDRs but was concerned about the cost of the equipment, which is estimated to be in the region of US$50,000 to US$60,000 per ship excluding installation. ICS also wants to know who will pay for the cost of recovering the VDR following a sinking.
Any reader with a view on the carriage of VDRs is encouraged to write to the editor.
Ballast water management
Ballast water management is now the subject of scrutiny in a number of countries for some rather different reasons.
The IMO guidelines for the control and management of ships’ ballast water focus on how to minimise the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens (diseases). This is achieved by not only minimising the ship’s intake of such organisms in recognised hazardous areas but – of greater significance to the safety of the ship and her crew – also during the exchange of ballast water at sea in a dynamic stability condition. This may result in huge free-surface and water movements causing structural and potentially fatal damage to ships.
Flag states which require the compulsory replacement of ballast water within one or two days of arrival in territorial waters leave the ship master, obliged to observe those regulations, in something a dilemma. The master must be confident that ballast water replacement can be achieved effectively and without threatening the safety of the ship and her crew.
This is achieved in one of two ways: replacement or flow-through.
Where practical, ships should conduct ballast exchange in deep water in the open ocean and as far as possible from shore. This applies particularly to the use of stripping pumps or eductors. Where the flow-through method is employed in open ocean by pumping water through the tank and allowing it to overflow, at least three times the tank volume should be pumped through each tank.
In cases when either of the above options are impractical, ballast water may be accepted by some states in certain designated areas or as may be defined by that state.
Though the ecological effects of ballast discharge into environmentally sensitive areas are yet to be fully studied and understood, the master must not overlook his port state responsibilities and the safety precautions necessary to avoid undue stress to both the hull, internal bulkheads and ballast system. These include
- avoidance of over and under-pressurisation of ballast tanks
- free-surface effects on stability in tanks that may be slack at any one time
- weather routing areas seasonally affected by cyclones or heavy icing conditions
- admissible weather conditions
- permissible seagoing strength limits of shear forces and bending moments
(class-approved stability book)
- design strengths and capacities of pipelines, vents, tank tops and manhole openings
- torsional forces
- minimum / maximum forward and aft drafts
- wave-induced hull vibration
- documented records of ballasting/
de-ballasting
- contingency plans (e.g. bad weather or loss of power)
- time restraints
- monitoring systems.
The ship’s staff engaged in ballast water exchange at sea should be well trained and familiar with the ship’s pumping arrangements, tank configuration, sounding pipes, ventilation arrangements and documentation. There should also be a ballast water management plan, which must include a list of circumstances in which ballast exchange should not be undertaken.
This subject is currently being reviewed by both the IMO and classification societies and will undoubtedly be topical as the strength and design of ships, in particular bulk carriers, come under close scrutiny. Owners would be well advised to contact their classification society or independent naval architects for comment.
Australian ballast water requirements
The latest ballast water requirements for ships arriving at their first port of call in Australia are that the master must provide an Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) Ballast Water Reporting Form to the ship’s agent for submission to AQIS at least 12 to 24 hours prior to arrival, along with the quarantine declaration.
If the ship intends to discharge ballast water in an Australian port, masters are required to comply with the Australian Ballast Water Management Guidelines. These include following a suitable ballast water exchange operation in mid-ocean.
Members needing further information should contact their agents in Australia or look at the AQIS Internet website at: http: //www.aqis.gov.au
New bulk carrier safety rules
Recent amendments to SOLAS contain new requirements for the construction and operation of bulk carriers.
Following the implementation in July 1998 of new unified requirements for the structure of bulk carriers by the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), the IMO introduced its new structural requirements on 1 July 1999. These are contained in SOLAS chapter XII and apply to both new bulk carriers and also to existing bulk carriers over a phased implementation period. Existing ships carrying high density cargoes will generally need to have sufficient strength to withstand the flooding of the foremost cargo hold and remain safely afloat.
Amendments to chapter VI of SOLAS have resulted in requirements for improved operating procedures. These include the need for a loading or unloading plan to be agreed between the master and the terminal representative and for a copy of the plan to be lodged with the appropriate port state authority.
The IMO has published its Code of Safe Practice for the Safe Loading and Unloading of Bulk Carriers (the BLU Code), which gives guidance to ship owners, shippers, masters, charterers and terminal operators. IACS has also produced some useful publications, including Bulk Carriers Handle with Care, which is aimed more at ships’ officers.
Requirements for ballast water to be exchanged in mid-ocean is another issue that may cause safety concerns for bulk carriers. Ballast water management is described in the article above and is particularly important on bulk carriers, where the movement of sea water in ballast tanks and holds in anything other than calm weather can be a major hazard.
Members needing further information should contact the IMO at 4 Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, Telephone: +44 171 735 7611, Fax: +44 171 587 3210 or the IACS Permanent Secretariat at 5 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9JA, United Kingdom, Telephone +44 171 976 0660, Fax: +44 171 976 0440.
Mariner and Maritime Law seminar 10
Accompanying this issue of Signals is the pamphlet and registration form for this year’s Nautical Institute seminar which is due to be held in Newcastle on Saturday 20 November 1999.
The seminar will raise some of the most important and fundamental issues facing the shipping industry as we enter the next millennium and is surely an event not to be missed.
It will be chaired by Captain Phil Anderson, who is the Institute’s Vice President and head of loss prevention at North of England. Maritime journalist John Guy will set the scene by raising some provocative issues on the role of the shipmaster at the end of the 20th century – particularly with regard to his numerous legal responsibilities and obligations. An eminent panel of legal and nautical speakers and a leading shipmanager will then explore a wide range of related issues.
The registration procedures for this year’s seminar are slightly different from previous years, when the administration was handled by the Institute’s head office in London. This year the registration will be handled by the seminar organising committee and completed registration forms, along with the appropriate fee, should be sent to The Nautical Institute (Seminar 10) c/o North of England P&I Association head office in Newcastle upon Tyne.
North of England training in the Far East
Three of the Club’s staff recently spent two weeks in Singapore and Malaysia with Members providing training and loss prevention advice. Assistant Manager Richard Bracken, FD&D barrister Thya Kathiravel and General Manager of the Hong Kong office Alan Lo visited numerous shipowner Members during their stay.
The three presented a ‘mini seminar’ which featured
- a North of England update
- a P&I and FD&D claim report
- a loss prevention and service resume
- a millennium update
- an ISM code update
They then focused on three principal topics
- bill of lading concerns and charterparty cargo clauses
- carriage of cargo on deck and deviations
- shipboard safety and personal injury prevention
The presentations were arranged for individual companies and attracted up to 40 delegates per session. They invariably overran as a result of many questions and much discussion.
SWAPP 15 - onboard training poster released
The latest poster in the Association’s safe work accident prevention poster (SWAPP) series is distributed with this issue of Signals. Focusing on the importance of good and effective onboard training, the poster features the now well recognised characters of Mr Good and Mr Bad engaged in onboard fire-fighting training.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of education and training and the role it plays in accident and injury prevention. All seafaring personnel must undergo extensive training before they even go onboard ship and, once aboard, need regular drills and training exercises.
Internationally recognised standards require that lifeboat drills, fire drills and in some cases helicopter drills are frequently undertaken. However, the vital role played by drills is often underestimated by seafarers.
All shipboard drills and training exercises should be as realistic as possible with carefully prepared scenarios drafted ahead of time to add authenticity. On many ships, drills are undertaken at specific/prearranged times, which usually leads to complacency and lacks realism. The day and time that drills are arranged should be varied and the way in which personnel muster for drills should be carefully monitored.
It must be remembered that many people have been injured during shipboard drills, particularly lifeboat drills, so extreme care must always be exercised. Shipboard training can extend well beyond the basic to include
- rescue from enclosed spaces
- rescue from engine room and machinery spaces
- man overboard response
- emergency steering operations
- emergency generator operation
- helicopter drills
- emergency communications
- first aid training
- breathing apparatus exercises
- ISO/ISM familiarisation
Experienced people onboard ship are often able to pass on a great deal of advice and assistance to others, however, training is a skilled task and many companies have seconded experienced senior officers, typically first engineers and chief officers, to training roles. In particular, they are able to train personnel in aspects of
- bridge teamwork
- shipboard safety
- computer skills
- ISO/ISM familiarisation
As depicted in the SWAPP poster enclosed, if personnel are incorrectly trained, poorly equipped or misinformed, incidents, injuries and sadly even fatalities can occur both during drills and when trying to adopt ill-advised practices for real.
Careful, well considered and well effected shipboard training is an essential part of the safe operation of ships and must not be underestimated.
New staff
Tony Baker - joined the loss prevention department in August 1999. He was at sea for 18 years and is a qualified master mariner. On leaving the sea he obtained an MBA from the University of Birmingham before spending three years at South Tyneside College, where he lectured in various maritime subjects.
Mike Hope - joined the FD&D department in July 1999. Prior to joining the Association, Mike was a partner with the Houston maritime law firm Eastham, Watson, Dale & Forney. He was called to the Bar of the State of Texas in 1987 and is also admitted to practice law in The District of Columbia and Maine.
Quiz Winners
The “Signals Swot” 1. winner was:
Mr Dave Staff of Marr ship Management.
The 20 runners-up are:
Captain Petar Popovic of Jugooceanija • Captain Zeljko Viskanic of Croatia • Mr Steven Volo of Harrisons Trading • Mr Robert Jette of Clark Drummie • Captain CS Swarnakar, Master MT ‘Astra’ • Andriani Gerondaki of Ermis Maritime • Christian Preda of Ermis Maritime • Sue Dickerson of Seacor Marine • Captain Danilo Nunag, Master MV ‘Yayasan Tiga’ • Mr Paul Horrocks of Commodore Ferries • Mr Ian Blair of South Coast Shipping • Captain Michael D Potts of Marine Navigation Co • N Ebbage of Stirling Ship Management • Mr Michael Veart of Seacor Marine • Chiranjib Chattopadhyay of P & I Services Pvt • Bridget Fitzgerald of Arklow Shipping • K Harisudan of India • Leila Teimouri of Sea Pars Shipping • Martina Scheufele of Koctug Shipping & Trading Inc • Aad Bouman of Hudig & Veder Well Done!!!
London office
Please note that the Association’s London office has been closed. Arrangements have been made to transfer telephone calls and other communications to head office in Newcastle.
Accordingly all future communications should be sent directly to the Newcastle or Hong Kong office accordingly.
Signals Swot Quiz
Welcome to Signals Swot number 2. We invite you to pit your wits against “Bosun Bo” and become a Signals Swotter!
This is not a general knowledge quiz but rather the answers to all the questions are to be found within this particular issue of Signals in which the quiz appears.
- The quiz is open to all readers of Signals.
- The quiz comprises of 12 multiple choice questions – simply tick the correct answer 3 .
- Send a photocopy of your answers, along with your name, and if appropriate – name of ship and position onboard – address and company to the editor of ‘Signals’ at the Association or submit your entry via our Internet Website: http://www.nepia.com.
- All correct entries received by the closing date will be entered in a prize draw.
- Closing date 17 December 1999
The first correct entry drawn will receive a limited and numbered edition of a high quality print of the portrait of our quiz master “Big Bo” personally signed by the illustrator “Tugg” Wilson as well as a specially commissioned “Bo’ the Brains” T-shirt. The next 20 correct entries drawn will each receive a “Bo’ the Brains” T-shirt. Details of all the winners will appear in the following edition of Signals.