Looking for leaks...

[The Dieselduck]

This email came in today which I thought might be of interest to us all. Have a read...
----

A colleague of mine, Capt. Peter Southwell of Melbourne, wrote to The Honourable Company Of Master Mariners concerning a recent delivery voyage. I include the text below, because I believe it should be of interest to us all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to draw to your attention a dangerous situation, which I recently found myself in, whilst delivering a new 60m anchor handling tug from Hong Kong to Darwin. It could have had nasty consequences and I draw it to your attention and that of the members because it is a trap for the unwary.

As usual with delivery work the company involved had me join the vessel the day before departure and I was given an induction. As can be imagined what with joining crew, storing , fueling and all the usual drama that goes with starting up a new ship, some detail, which was not included in the induction, was lost.

Several documents, including the stability info and tank capacities was given to me (literally) 1 hour before sailing. The technician who was installing the satcoms came with us down the harbour and got off with the pilot. I have come to expect such matters as normal when involved in delivery work.

What I was not aware of and consider to be a dangerous precedent was that there is an obscure ruling under the IMO, which allows owners to use sister ship info when developing stability and other information. I can see the rationale behind the ruling, in that it saves money on naval architects fees, but the question is when is a sister ship a sister ship or not a sister ship and what criteria determines this.

I sailed out of Hong Kong straight into a typhoon, which sort of concentrates the mind, for 48 hours and then had to land a sick engineer in Manila. After this we started to work out the ship and found that the plans on the bulkheads and other info did not match the ship we were on. The tank criteria did not match the tanks on board. We found that we had capacity plans for two tanks which did not exist and that took two days to work out. Try looking for the sounding pipes of two non existent tanks. According to the FW capacity tables we were using 14 tonnes per day, which for 11 men is way over the mark (usually 3-5 tonnes is standard). We searched for pipe leakages or over filled bilges etc., but eventually concluded the tank tables were wrong.

As we delved into all this we found that the main indicator that a sister ship was being used as an information source is that the plans do not show the name of any particular vessel on them. It was also stated in the small print (very small) hidden in the middle of the stability info.

The ship which we were on was built in China and the sister ship being used, was of a similar class of vessel which had been built in Singapore. There are bound to be discrepancies between two such vessels.

This really is a trap for the unwary, which generates considerable stress because, as Master, one cannot trust the information given. When I left the vessel in Darwin the mysteries were still being worked on.

I was not concerned about the actual stability on delivery because these vessels, being tugs, are inherently stable and we had no deck cargo. I was also under the usual commercial pressure to get to Darwin on time.

However, I feel for the master and mate who will have to work the vessel. If a Port State surveyor had asked me to show him the stability calculations for the trip (we had no computer programme) I would have been extremely embarrassed.

I suggest that this be taken up by the Company with the IMO, because this could have been a very tricky situation. I suggest that the fact that a sister ship is being used should be highlighted on every plan and on the front of the stability booklet. Also there should be much stricter guidelines as to what constitutes a sister ship.

I am Sir
yours etc.

Capt. Peter Southwell

[JK]

Sounds like that company needs to invest in a Fisher Maritime Course.

Pretty scary in this day and age that a company would be so blase.

[Pengze]

Oh my God! Pretty scary.
This case is only the tip of the iceberg.
I do agree about the comment regarding the term 'sister ships'. The unscrupulous cut corners by saving money when they abuse the real meaning of sister ships whereby they use the stability of the other sister ship to apply on the next available vessel. The ships are identical but not similar as the adage goes.
I suggest IMO should re-look into this issue before the safety of the ship & crew and danger to the environment is compromised.
Usually when there is an accident happening then only will the authority start to review, why not before implementing this rule, they should have forseen the grave consequences that are conveniently to be abused.
This is very sad for the marine community.
Hope there is light at the end of the dark tunnel.