Port state inspections

[Madzng]

What do you think of the inspectors that come onbord.

One of our vessels has recently had a deficiency placed against it because the Port State Inspector "didnt have time (or didnt want to wait) to see an alarm tested.. " the ship wastold to e-mail him photographic proof that it was tested within 14 days.

Another inspector (maybe the same one) raised a deficiency against the ship because the individual ventilation outlets in the ER could not be closed remotely in the event of a ER fire - the flaps fitted at the ER fan intakes were irrelevent!

I have been onboard when port state inspectors were adding up the last three months worth of ORB entries to make sure that not even 0.1m3 was incorrectly accounted for..

How many port state inspectors come onboard determind to find something that can either landthe ship with a fine, or claim cigarettes or a bottle or two to make the problem "go away". How many countries (no names) use Port state control inspections to make money, how many port state departments are only funded by their own fines?

Even though the inspector is wrong how many ships simply do what is requested for an easy life, reinforcing the inspectors belief that he is right?

Beside wasting a seafarers limited rest hours, and rare chance to go ashore, are these completely useless inspections which happen actually discredit the idea behind them?

Who has had, or knows of the most stupid deficiency raised or attempted to be raised against a ship?

[JollyJack]

It appears you are a recent addition to the seafarer's roster.

In the past 20 years, PSC has raised the status of seafarers from galley slaves to professionals by getting rid of sub-standard ships and improving living conditions by implementing ILO 147. PSC Inspectors keep seafarers alive by ensuring, for example, the vent fan remote stops actually work and that lifeboats can be swung out, that boat drivers can actually aim the vessel in the right direction, that Engineers know what they are doing and that the crew are not "hot bunking", ie sharing beds. (all practices and conditions which were quite common in the 70s and early 80s) The primary job of the PSC Inspector is to keep shipowners honest by making sure their ships are seaworthy, living conditions are acceptable and the crew have enough food and water aboard.

There have been ships detained in Canada for contravening basic safety regulations, by keeping rotten veg and fruit in the cold store, emergency generators not working, no effective fire pump, oil in boilers....all defects which have been detected by PSC Inspectors. I suggest you go to www.parismou.org and see what's been caught in the net. Believe me, if shipowners weren't compelled to supply safety gear, they wouldn't! Safety gear costs money and has no return for profits.

I know that in Africa and in Asia, corruption is endemic, that's why shipping companies budget for it ($1000 per port in West Africa, budgeted by Delmas Shipping). If a ship captain has any beef with a Paris or Tokyo MOU PSC Inspector, the address for appeal is on the Form A, (notice of inspection) Form B (notice of deficiency) and Form C (notice of detention) given to him. Should an appeal be launched, the Inspector better have a bloody good reason for his actions, and the evidence to back it up! That's why the PSC Inspector carries a digital camera (and no, you can't stop him taking pictures, you'd be contravening the Canada Shipping Act 2001 by obstructing him [penalty is $1,000,000 fine and 18 months] ), to collect evidence to justify his deficiency or detention. All deficiencies and detentions MUST be accompanied by a photograph of the offending article, holes in the hull, warm meat room, oily bilge, filthy toilets etc. Documentary deficiencies need copies of the offending document.

PSC Inspectors keep you alive, healthy, warm and fed.

BTW, 1% of bunker capacity must be accounted for as slops disposed of, or retained. In Germany, if you can't account for that, it's assumed you pumped it over the side and the ship is fined. In USA, the ship is fined for falsifying records and the Chief, or whoever signed the ORB, faces jail time. ($3 Mil in the case of one of the Carnival cruise ships) In my 36 years at sea, (25 as Chief Engineer) before I came ashore, I know that 1% of bunker capacity is actually underestimating slops by a vast amount. And god help the Chief who has a magic pipe around the OWS! People get upset when they see dead, oiled birds on TV. They still don't get too worried though, when a rustbucket sinks and 29 sailors die, after all, sailors are disposable, right?

PSC tries to stop the rustbuckets, Inspectors are there to keep YOU alive. (that is, of course, if you are a seafarer and not a failed 2nd Mate ashore as a Superintendent, trying to defend a shipping company's substandard ships to earn Brownie points with the Boss.)

[JK]

JollyJack, I am pretty sure our friend is a lot more then a failed 2nd mate. Dealing with regulatory can make me swear, I am sure Port State control on well founded ships can give the same angst.
We don't hear of the hell-ships anymore. The ones were there had no operating toilets or the crew is living only on rice because a 10 day trip took 40. Hopefully they are of the past, though you really do have to wonder about the ship that ended up aground in Australia.

[JollyJack]

Not too long ago, a ship was detained in Canada with a cracked hull, another with 49 deficiencies, 7 of them detainable, and yet another discovered with 4 days food and fuel for a 10 day voyage she was never supposed to finish. Another, with severly wasted hull, was detained in Vancouver. The owner appealed and the Courts released the ship. She broke apart and sank on the way to China. The poster child for Inspections is parked on Scatarie island right now, hull delegated to Lloyds in 1987. Maximum wastage allowed on hull scantings is 30% before renewal, hull wastage on the Miner is 70%! Her Statutory Safety Certificates were renewed 2 years ago by Lloyds.

There are not nearly enough Port State and Flag state inspections. Remember Prestige? How about Derbyshire? There's good reason why ships are flagged to a brass plaque on a sandspit. PSC has no legal teeth, it relies on the Flag's regulations. If the Flag is owned by Lloyds, RINA or DNV, then they dictate conditions. Shipowners pay Lloyds, Rina, DNV, ABS etc for their services, so guess whose interests are protected? Why should it raise eyebrows that there's a box boat on a reef Down Under? 4-6 bulkers from Oz go missing every year, they break up at sea and sink with no trace, leaving, on average, 30 widows and bereaved mothers each. But they're only sailors, right? Probably Filipinos or some other third world nationality, so who really cares? certainly not the Classification societies.

Jolly Jack the Seafarer is at the bottom of the priority list.

It may be a pain in the arse sometimes, but seafarers NEED PSC inpections, otherwise we'd be back to coffin ships in no time. Remember you only have lifeboats because the Titanic sunk with several rich Americans aboard.

[JK]

I mis spoke obviously. The last ship I heard about was detained in Vancouver years ago. ( But then again,I fully admit that I don't take the time to follow up on statistics.)
TC must be another muzzled government department as none of this gets into the public eye.

[JollyJack]

Check ships banned and detained here: http://www.parismou.org/

Check the dismal record of Canadian ships on Port State inspections here:

http://www.parismou.org/Inspection_effo ... se_search/

If you discount the Maersk Detector's 4 clean inspections, there were 15 PSC inspections done on Canadian ships in Europe and, of these 15, 11 have detentions or deficiencies. Click on "Details" of, for example, Dutch Runner, you'll see holed bulkheads, missing fire dampers, crew untrained in life saving equipment, no passage plan, corroded and holed decks...

Is it any wonder that Canada is "Grey List" in the Paris MOU? This ensures that Canadian ships are targeted for inspection as substandard by the PSC organization.

If you checked http://www.tokyo-mou.org/ no doubt you'd find something similar.

[Madzng]

I think that my original post was not clear enough..

I am not suggesting that Port State is not necessary, or that it should be stopped. Unfortunately as long as cheap owners continue to sail they will do a valuable job.

BUT....

This does not excuse the port state inspectors that visit the vessels with little knowledge, no understanding and with no consideration themselves for the crews rest hours or welfare..

The examples I mentioned are not even the start of some of the unprofessional things mentioned or done by PSC inspectors and it is not always in "third world" ports.. One European country see the PSC as a means to suppliment its income and at least one which is probably now glad they did not become European are funded only from the fines that they issue..

The infamous German river police who used to board the vessels made things up, in order to fine ships and fund their own department. I know of at least one Chief Engineer 20 years ago who was caught out when they insisted that the automatic fuel transfers from the bunker storage tank to settling tank had to be recorded in the ORB. Did he not know or was he just worried about the repercussions of challenging them?

We all have bad examples of PSC inspections, and the aim of the post was no more than to start some light hearted discussions on the worst, and may be even a few tips on how to deal with them when they come up..

Many years ago, whilst on a gas tanker in the US, we under went an inspection by USCG. After passing the inspection we jokingly asked why they chose our vessel over the one on the next berth. Their answer...

"Because we know if we came here we'd be finished by 5"

On another ship (again in the US) we had to get a Class surveyor onboard to discuss various items that the PSC inspector was trying to raise.. Even the class surveyor was shaking his head and could not convince the PSC inspector that what he was wanting was not in any legislation.

I have been subject to a very thorough and unnecessary USCG inspection simply because the gangway watchman would not let the persons onboard the without their photo ID - as required by the ISPS code..

You mention that Canada has a dismal record with Port State inspections.. how many are inspected by Canadian inspectors when in home waters? Do the inspectors concentrate on the "bad" foreign ships or do they spend their time on the "good" Canadian ones..

How many flag states turn a blind eye to their own ships?

These are the inspections that need to be stopped, these are inspector that are discrediting the PSC ideal. Hiding behind their authority as they hand out fines or write up false deficiencies, when asked to show exactly where they are requesting/expecting is written down in legislation.

[JollyJack]

Best way to deal with USCG inspectors in my experience is to look them right in the eye and treat them very seriously. Act as if you are convinced that they know what you're talking about.....and you can tell them anything about disombooberated froshbottles or anything else.

Canada has not, to date, inspected many of the deep sea or Laker fleet because they have been delegated to a "Recognized Organization" like Lloyds etc. However, this will change in the near future and I think you can look forward to several of them tying up permanently. (The delegation programme poster child is parked on Scatertie Island off Cape Breton) They won't flag out, because they'll be subject to Port State Control inspections, and all Canadian PSC Officers are either Chief Engineers or Master Mariners who have spent time at sea and know what to look for. Canada has very high PSC standards and are well regarded internationaly.

Every deficiency written up is required to be referenced to the appropriate Convention's section and sub section, eg, SOLAS 2004 II-2 R9 7.5.2.1.1 for the galley grease trap on cargo ships and passenger ships with less than 36 passengers. The PSC MUST be able to reference deficiencies on Form B,or Form C, otherwise they are invalid. All references are in Vol 2 of the Paris MOU Manual, which the Inspector is required to carry with him. Don't get your knickers in a twist, just call Paris MOU in Versailles to lodge an appeal (the number is in the MOU Manual) while the Inspector is aboard and let them talk to him. In case of a dispute, you might want to inform the RO (Class) and the Consulate of the ship's flag.

Big fleas have little fleas on their back, to bite 'em, and little fleas have lesser fleas, and so, ad infinitum.

[The Dieselduck]

Excellent information in this post. Thanks for sharing and putting yourself out there.

Martin