Collision between general cargo vessel Daroja and oil bunker barge Erin Wood

Marine Accident Investigation Branch reports

Collision between general cargo vessel Daroja and oil bunker barge Erin Wood, Location: 4 nautical miles south-east of Peterhead, Scotland      

Update: First published.

For further information on this published report:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/585a70e9ed915d0aeb0000ea/MAIBInvReport27_2016.pdf

How Should Shipowners Prepare for Bunker Quality Disputes?

The Shipowners’ Club gave its members tips on how to be prepared for potential bunker quality dispute claims which have lately been on the rise. 

The dispute claims, related to the delivery of allegedly off-specification or contaminated bunkers, have ranged from variation in the parameters of the bunker supplied to presence of contaminants. These claims can result in expensive claims not only because of the bunkers themselves but also related costs such as machinery damage, time lost and tank cleaning costs, the club said.

According to the association, bunker disputes are fraught with problems, both on an evidentiary and legal basis. This is perhaps not surprising, the club said, given that both the bunker supplier and receiver are working to strict schedules often resulting in important aspects of the bunker delivery operations being overlooked.

Depending on the charter arrangements, either the owner or the charterer will be responsible for ordering and arranging bunkers to be supplied to the vessel. Bunker receivers may find supplier’s terms onerous. In particular, the liability exclusion clauses and short time periods within which a claim has to be presented in a jurisdiction of the supplier’s choice. The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO) has issued a more balanced Standard Bunker Contract and mutual insurance association is advising shipowners to use it as a starting point when negotiating a supply contract.

In addition, it is also important that the correct grade of bunkers, based on the engine type and applicable regulations, is ordered and specified in sale and purchase agreement, according to the club. To avoid any confusion, it is best to specify the grade of bunkers by making a reference to their ISO 8217 grade. Blending of bunkers in the receiving ship’s tanks or in the hoses should be avoided to ensure homogenous bunkers are delivered, The Shipowners’ Club said.

At the time of delivery, the ship’s crew should be presented with a bunker delivery receipt detailing the specifications of bunkers being supplied. Prior to taking delivery, the ship’s crew should ensure that these details correspond with the stemmed specification, according to the club.

Furthermore, sampling is the most crucial evidence to preserve, according to the club, as it will be relied upon if a dispute later arises regarding the quality of bunkers supplied. Samples of bunkers already in the receiving ship’s tanks should be collected prior to commencement of bunkering operations and the mixing of new and old bunkers should be avoided as much as possible. The ship’s crew should attend the sampling on the barge to ensure that correct sampling procedures are followed and sufficient quantity of these samples is retained for future analysis. Sampling equipment should be clean and tamper proof and samples collected must be sealed and retained, the mutual insurance association further said.

Upon completion of bunkering, the supplier should present a bunker delivery note to the ship’s crew and a copy should be retained by the ship’s staff.

Newly supplied bunkers should only be used once their samples have been analyzed and they are found to be on-specification and free of contaminants. Not doing so exposes the ship’s machinery to damage from off-spec and/or contaminated bunkers and the owners of the vessel to a breach of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) or other local regulations governing the specification of bunkers to be consumed by the vessel. The International Safety Management (ISM) Code and MARPOL checklists and records should also be preserved to demonstrate that proper procedures were followed, according to The Shipowners’ Club.

If the bunkers are found to be off-specification or contaminated they should not be used and a surveyor should immediately be appointed to collect the samples. Depending on the degree to which the bunkers are found to be off-specification or contaminated, an analysis of these samples will need to be carried out. Bunker quality experts may also need to be appointed to advise on mitigation of damage to the ship and to suggest further appropriate analysis which bolsters the claim/defense, the club advised its members.

Members are advised to also explore indemnity provisions in other relevant contracts, such as charter parties, when faced with bunker quality issues.

IGF Code takes effect on January 2017

The International Code for Ships using Gases and other Low Flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code) will take effect on 1 January, 2017, providing a clear legislative framework for ships to install LNG fuel systems. Specific provisions for ships to use other fuels with flashpoint below 60°C have yet to be developed.

The IGF Code will apply to all vessels above 500 gross tonnage that install low flashpoint fuel systems. It has been made mandatory through the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).

Vessels planning to install fuel systems for other types of low flashpoint fuels would be required to demonstrate compliance with the functional requirements of the IGF Code through alternative design.

Work on developing regulations for low flashpoint fuels other than gas is ongoing the International Maritime Organization (IMO), at the Sub-Committee on Carriage of Cargoes and Containers (CCC), which reports to the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC).

CCC has been making progress on a new set of specific technical provisions in the IGF Code for ships to use methyl/ethyl alcohol (which includes methanol) as a fuel. It has not, however, been able to begin work on a new chapter of the IGF Code to deal with diesel fuels with a flashpoint between 52°C and 60°C as there has only been preliminary discussion but no concrete input.

At present, ships that have LNG or other low flashpoint fuel systems need to obtain permits from each port authority or the maritime administration in the countries where they call, but from 2017, vessels built and approved in accordance with the IGF Code will be able to trade freely around the world. These vessel will have SOLAS certificates to confirm that the requirements of the IGF-Code are met for a specific type of fuel.

https://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/pdf/tech_info/tech_img/T1054e.pdf

Suitable means for the calibration of portable atmosphere testing instruments as referred to in SOLAS regulation XI-1/7

This is further to Class News 33/2014 and Class News 05/2016 regarding SOLAS regulation XI-1/7, which entered into force on 1 July 2016, requiring the carriage of an appropriate portable atmosphere testing instrument or instruments for enclosed space entry.

A request was made by the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), seeking clarification regarding the following requirement: “suitable means shall be provided for the calibration of all such instruments”. Following this, the below unified interpretation of SOLAS regulation XI-1/7 was agreed at IMO meeting MSC 97:
“Provision of suitable means for the calibration of portable atmosphere testing instruments 

Compliance with the provision ‘suitable means shall be provided for the calibration of all such instruments’ in SOLAS regulation XI-1/7, as adopted by resolution MSC.380(94), may be achieved by portable atmosphere testing instruments being calibrated on board or ashore in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

For the avoidance of any doubt, the above clarification refers to the calibration of portable atmosphere testing instruments, as required by SOLAS regulation XI-1/7, and not to any pre-operational accuracy tests as recommended by the manufacturer.”
The above unified interpretation of SOLAS regulation XI-1/7 will be published in due course as MSC.1/Circ.1562.

New SOLAS requirements for enclosed space entry and rescue drills, and draft requirements for portable atmosphere testing

Because of the serious threat posed to people working in enclosed spaces on board ships, the IMO has introduced new requirements to SOLAS Chapter III, regulation 19, which enter into force on 1 January, 2015. From this date, crew members will be required to participate in an enclosed space entry and rescue drill on board the ship at least once every two months.

The IMO is also finalising mandatory requirements for portable atmosphere testing instruments to be carried on board ships. These are expected to be adopted in November 2014 for entry into force on 1 July, 2016, as SOLAS regulation XI-1/7. These portable testing instruments will not be used as part of personal protective safety equipment but as part of the ship’s equipment. They will be used to test enclosed spaces from the outside to make sure they are safe to enter and will cover, as a minimum, the following gases: oxygen, flammable gasses or vapours, carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulphide.

The IMO will be issuing an associated circular providing guidance on selecting portable atmosphere testing instruments, which we will detail in a future Class News.
Early implementation of regulation XI-1/7
Because the regulation XI-1/7 requirements for portable testing instruments will enter into force much later than the regulation 19 rescue drill requirements, the IMO has drafted a circular to encourage their early implementation. The circular is expected to be issued in December 2014.
Related IMO resolutions and circulars
The changes to SOLAS Chapter III, regulation 19 are detailed in IMO Resolution MSC.350(92)
Recommendations for entering enclosed spaces are contained in IMO Resolution A.1050(27)
 High speed craft, mobile offshore drilling units and dynamically supported craft
The enclosed space entry and rescue drill requirements also apply to high speed craft, mobile offshore drilling units and dynamically supported craft from 1 January, 2015. Amendments have been made to the following Codes accordingly:

• the 1979 Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Code (Resolution MSC.357(92))
• the 1989 Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Code (Resolution MSC.358(92)
• the 2000 Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Code (Resolution MSC.359(92))
• the Dynamically Supported Craft Code (Resolution MSC.360(92))
• the High Speed Craft Code 1994 (Resolution MSC.351(92)), and
• the High Speed Craft Code 2000 (Resolution MSC.352(92)). 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12013214/RESOLUTION%20MSC.350(92).pdf

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12013214/Resolution_A.1050(27).pdf

Publication of EU MRV delegated and implementing regulations

The European Commission has published the delegated and implementing acts to support the entry into force of the EU Regulation on Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of CO2 Emissions from Ships (EU MRV).* This follows completion of the consultation announced in Class News 23/2016, and input from the European Sustainable Shipping Forum’s MRV sub-groups, in which Lloyd’s Register has been an active participant.

The four published regulations provide the information needed by shipowners or operators and verifiers, as follows:

• Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1928 on determination of cargo carried for categories of ships other than passenger, ro-ro and container ships pursuant to [EU MRV]
  
  This provides the cargo parameter definitions for different ship types to support clear implementation.
   
• Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1927 on templates for monitoring plans, emissions reports and documents of compliance pursuant to [EU MRV]
  
  The three templates are provided as annexes to the regulation.
   
• Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2072 on the verification activities and accreditation of verifiers pursuant to [EU MRV]
  
  Various definitions and procedural details are clarified.
   
• Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2071 amending [EU MRV] as regards the methods for monitoring carbon dioxide emissions and the rules for monitoring other relevant information
  
  Amendments to Annexes I and II of EU MRV are made to reflect necessary changes to the required monitoring practices and to reflect industry best practice.

Owners and operators of ships that will be subject to EU MRV are advised to review these regulations in order to support preparations for when MRV comes into effect. 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2016.299.01.0001.01.ENG

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2016.320.01.0005.01.ENG

Guard Vessel Pre-Hire Inspection Template

Following a recent work group review the revised Pre-hire inspection template for Guard Vessels is now available on the website for download.

A pdf version of this is available through the link below and word copy can be obtained through contacting secretary@marinesafetyforum.org if required. 

http://www.marinesafetyforum.org/images/MSF%20Guard%20Vessel%20Pre-Hire%20Inspection%20Template.pdf

Μέθοδοι αγκυροβολίας και προετοιμασία

http://www.e-nautilia.gr/methodoi-agkurovolias/

Equipment servicing – Requirements for servicing, testing and calibrating equipment

http://www.lr.org/en/_images/229-78808_Onboard_Maintenance_Guidance_tables_-_external_-_Jan_2016.pdf

7 Points To Remember When Manning And Supervising Ship’s Survival Craft

With the manpower having reduced to a fundamental minimum on board ships, it is all the more imperative to keep safety at sea as the prime concern for the crew.
Regular maintenance of lifeboats, life rafts and other such safety entities must be done thoroughly, for it is kept in place for the benefit of the workforce. After all, at the time of distress, it the survival craft that is going to get us to safety.

Although it might seem cumbersome after a day’s work, drills on ships are kept in place to ensure that the entire workforce is thorough with each and every safety procedure with regard to evacuation or any other emergency.
It might sound cliché, but it is only with regular practice of the drills that the operation of the lifeboat/rescue boat and life rafts becomes a lot easier. I’m sure we will all agree that after repeated drills, every nook and corner of the survival craft comes easily to the memory.
Keeping all of the above in mind, following articles should be read, introducing among others the 7 points to remember with regard to manning of survival craft and supervision,

http://www.marineinsight.com/guidelines/manning-of-survival-craft-and-supervision/

http://www.marineinsight.com/marine-safety/measures-to-stop-accidents-on-lifeboats/

Preliminary Report of IMO MSC 97

The 96th session of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 96) was held at the headquarters of the IMO in London from 11 to 20 May.  A summary of the outcome is given hereunder for your information.

Please note that this summary has been made based on informal information obtained from participants from Class NK and Working Papers distributed during MSC 96 with priority given to disseminating the information as early as practicable.

The summary may be downloaded at,

https://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/pdf/info_service/imo_and_iacs/msc96_sum_rev0_e.pdf

The LR Summary Report for the IMO Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 97) is now available.

The meeting was held on 21-25 November 2016, at the IMO headquarters in London. This briefing summarizes subjects under discussion which are relevant to the work of Lloyd's Register.


The Report may be downloaded at,


http://www.lr.org/en/_images/229-105056_MSC_97_Summary_Report.pdf?utm_source=pardot&utm_medium=email&utm_term=lrmarine&utm_content=pub&utm_campaign=MSC97SummaryReport

Chemical tankers that carry products requiring oxygen-dependent inhibitors

Chemical tankers that carry products containing oxygen-dependent inhibitors should note that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has approved an example Certificate of Protection* for use when carrying inhibited cargoes.

Ships carrying such cargoes shall be provided with a Certificate of Protection, as required by Chapter 15.13.3 of the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code).

It should be noted that IMO circulars MSC.1/Circ.1501 and MSC-MEPC.5/Circ.10 should also be read in conjunction with the above.

Relevant Circulars may be viewed at,

http://info.lr.org/e/12702/tection-MSC-MEPC-2-Circ-16-pdf/389445i/659040118

http://www.mardep.gov.hk/en/msnote/pdf/msin1604anx1.pdf

10 Important Points to Comply With Ballast Water Convention

The International maritime organization (IMO) in 1997 adopted the guidelines for control and management of ship’s ballast water to minimize transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens from one sea area to another. Later, the Marine Environment Protection committee on February 2004 adopted the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments.

According to this convention all ships should carry and implement ballast water and sediments management plan, maintain ballast water record book and carry out ballasting and de ballasting operations in accordance with the convention.

 Mentioned below are ten important points for complying with the ballast water convention:

1. General Methods For Managing Ballast Water Whose Source Is Anything Other Than The Deep Ocean Are As Follows:

1) Proceed to Port state approved offshore location to carry out exchange

2) Seal tank against discharge while in port waters

3) Pump water to a shore reception facility

4) Prove by Laboratory analysis that the ballast Water in safe and acceptable

5) Treat the Ballast in-Situ using an approved treatment method.

2. Important Points To Consider For Taking Ballast In Port

To the greatest extent possible, the ship should be slightly ballasted in port for departure using ballast tanks to allow for safe Navigation. The master should ensure that the ship takes on ballast water that is as clean as possible and care should be taken to minimize any sediment uptake. Taking on Ballast under the following circumstances should be avoided whenever possible:

1) In shallow water

2) In vicinity of sewage out-falls or dredging operations

3) Near, where there is a known outbreak of diseases communicable through ballast water

4) In areas with toxic phytoplankton blooms (harmful algae blooms such as Red tides)

5) At night when bottom- dwelling organisms may rise up in the water column

6) Where the incoming or outgoing tide is known to be turbid

7) Where tidal flushing is poor

3. Important Methods Of Ballast Water Exchange

Ballast water exchange operations are to be carried out in the deep water, open ocean as far as possible from the shore. The exchange should be conducted when the vessel is sailing in clean ocean water, which can be found more than 200 nautical miles from shore and in the water where the depth is 200 meters or more.

Currently three methods are exists and the sequential method is preferred.

Method 1:

Sequential method: The ballast tanks with water to be exchanged are emptied and refilled with clean ocean water in order to achieve at least a 95 percentage volumetric exchange. In this method the ballast tanks are emptied until the ballast pumps lose suction and then the tanks are further stripped by eductor systems.

Method 2

Flow-through method: A process by which replacement ballast water is pumped into a ballast, allowing the incoming water to overflow through the air vent or dedicated overflow vents. In practice, this means that at least three (3) tank volumes are to be pumped through each ballast tank to achieve 95% of efficiency of exchange.

Method 3

Dilution method: A process in which the replacement ballast water is filled through the top of ballast tank (e.g. Manhole) with simultaneous discharge from the bottom of the tank at the same rate, while maintaining a constant level in the tank during the operation.

4. Ballast Water Sampling Point 

The sampling of ballast water may be required by the local authorities such as a Quarantine officer. Normal ballast water sampling may be done through the sounding pipe. Location of the sounding pipes’ heads are to be marked and should be shown on the vessel plan.

5. Sediment Management

Routine cleaning to remove sediments from tanks which are used to carry ballast should be regularly under taken:

1) Flushing with small quantity of clean water in an empty tank and de-ballasting it again

2) Manual cleaning by making an entry in to a ballast tank or tanks. The tank entry is an hazardous operation and safety procedures should be followed before entry. Inform port authority and “Enclosed space entry permit” to be made prior entry.

6. Chain Lockers and Sea Chests 

Subjected to practical accessibility, all sources of sediment retention such as anchors, cables, chain lockers, suction wells should be cleaned out regularly as an additional precaution to further reduce the possibility of spreading contamination.

7. Disposal of Sediments

During cleaning and De-slitting operations, the tank sediments should be safely disposed of and should NOT be discharged in estuarine of coastal waters. Safe disposal consists of removal to shore facilities or designated landfill areas or discharge into deep ocean water in accordance with the convention.

8. Record Keeping

All the data of ballasting and De-ballasting operations, ballast water exchange  etc. should be recorded with time and position in the ballast water record book .When sediment is cleaned from ballast tanks or chain lockers, this data should also be logged.

9. Ballast Water Management Officer

Usually, Chief Officer is the designated person for ballast water management. He must ensure that the procedures laid out in the ballast water management plan is implemented on board properly. It is important to plan and carry out ballasting and De-ballasting operation taking in to account the stability, trim factors of the vessel and advising other officers to carry out the operation safely. Prepare the ballast water declaration from prior to arrival in port. Assist port state control or quarantine officers for any sampling that may need to be taken. Maintain the Ballast water record book properly.

10. Crew Training and Familiarization

All officers and ratings should be trained and familiarized regarding ship’s pumping plan, positions of air and sounding pipes, location of tanks and manholes, compartment and tank suctions, pipe lines as well as remote pump operation and sounding equipment. Also all crew should be made aware of safety precautions and hazards involved. In addition, officers should be familiarized with record –keeping and approved stability booklet, and ballast water log should be cross checked everyday.

More researches are still under progress to enhance ballast water management and to eradicate the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens, thus preventing change in marine environment and marine lives. Plans for making ships without ballast tanks are also underway which will further help in putting an end to pollution caused by ballast water.

California to Enforce At-Berth Regulation Next Year

California Air Resources Board (ARB) has issued an advisory to inform affected vessel fleets and terminal operators as to how Air Resources Board (ARB) staff will proceed with enforcement of the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Auxiliary Diesel Engines Operated on Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth in a California Port (At-Berth Regulation or Regulation), beginning January 1, 2017.

The provisions in this Advisory will cover actions beginning January 1, 2017, and ending when ARB revokes this Advisory. ARB will evaluate eligibility for the flexibility provided in this Advisory on a case-by-case basis, as set forth below. As of January 1, 2017, this Advisory supersedes previous advisories (dated December 2013 and March 2015) regarding the At-Berth Regulation. Vessel fleet and terminal compliance plans for the 2017 calendar year may follow the guidance in this Advisory

ARB’s At-Berth Regulation is intended to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from auxiliary engines on ocean-going vessels while at-berth at California ports. Fleets affected by the Regulation include those composed of container vessels, passenger vessels, or refrigerated cargo vessels. Fleets can comply through one of two paths: the Reduced Onboard Power Generation Option (that relies on use of shore-based electrical power), or the alternative Equivalent Emissions Reduction Option.

The Regulation requires fleets complying under the Reduced Onboard Power Generation Option to satisfy the following two criteria beginning on January 1, 2017:

• Visits: At least 70 percent of a fleet’s visits to a port must satisfy the following limit on engine operation: for each visit, the auxiliary engines on the vessel cannot operate for more than three hours during the entire time the vessel is at-berth (e.g., a shore power visit); and

• Power Reductions: The fleet’s total onboard auxiliary engine power generation must be reduced by at least 70 percent from the fleet’s baseline power generation.

Fleets that comply under the Equivalent Emission Reduction Option pathway must reduce NOx and PM by 70percent or more through use of an ARB-approved technology.

On January 1, 2020, the requirements under the existing regulation increase to 80 percent for the visit, power reduction, and equivalent emission reduction requirements.

ARB understands it may not be possible for regulated entities to satisfy certain provisions in the Regulation under certain circumstances. As a result, ARB will offer six possible scenarios (see relevant advisory below), which may apply on a case-bycase basis, with the objective of providing flexibility to fleets that have equipped their vessels to use shore power or contracted to use an alternative control technology to comply with the At-Berth Regulation.

View the six different scenarios that California ARB offers by reading current advisory

http://www.green4sea.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/CARB-Advisory-on-At-Berth-Regulation-2016_11.pdf

AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEX I - Regs 1, 12, 13, 17 and 38 of MARPOL Annex I, Supplement to the IOPP Certificate and Oil Record Book Parts I and II

AMENDMENTS TO REGULATIONS 1, 12, 13, 17 AND 38 OF MARPOL ANNEX I

Circular may be downloaded at,

http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=26472&filename=187(59).pdf

LR Summary Report IMO Marine Environment and Protection Committee (MEPC 70)

The LR Summary Report for the the IMO Marine Environment and Protection Committee (MEPC 70) is now available.

The meeting was held on 24-28 October 2016, at the IMO headquarters in London. This briefing summarizes subjects under discussion which are relevant to the work of Lloyd's Register.

The full MEPC may be downloaded at,

http://www.lr.org/en/_images/229-103461_MEPC_70_Summary_Report.pdf?utm_source=pardot&utm_medium=email&utm_term=lrmarine&utm_content=publication&utm_campaign=MEPC70SummaryReport

UK P+I CLUB 10/2016 - Loading Grain Cargoes in the Pacific Northwest - USA

The UK P&I Club offers the following advice to ship owners and charterers who load grains at ports in Washington and Oregon.

The Bulletin may be downloaded at,

http://www.ukpandi.com/fileadmin/uploads/uk-pi/LP%20Documents/LP_Bulletins/Bulletin_1118_-_Loading_Grain_Cargoes_in_the_Pacific_Northwest_-_USA.pdf

EMSA Issues Equasis Annual Report 2015

EMSA issued Equasis Annual Report 2015 providing a picture of the worlds’ merchant fleet in 2015, derived from data contained in the Equasis database. It examines the structure and characteristics of the fleet and its performance.

Merchant Fleet Population Overview

The Equasis fleet is dominated (81%) by small and medium sized ships up to 24.999 GT. Small ships alone represent 37% by number, although around only 1% by tonnage.Tugs (19.9%), general cargo ships (18.7%), oil and chemical tankers (14.6%) and bulk carriers (12.9%) are the most
common ship types by number, representing about two thirds of the Equasis fleet. Most of these are small and medium sized ships.

Within the large and very large categories, bulk carriers (40.3%), oil and chemical tankers (24.5%) and container ships (17.2%) represent about 85% of the fleet in number in these ship size categories.

In terms of tonnage, the large and very large size categories represent 81% of the Equasis fleet (Graph 2), with oil and chemical tankers, bulk carriers, and container ships jointly dominating both categories at 84% (large) and 83.6% (very large).

The most modern fleets are made up of the biggest ships in tonnage. Looking back at the statistics of the previous years, it is clear that the younger ships are bigger than their predecessors. This trend has been observed in previous years with the biggest ships being recent additions to the fleet.

Around a third (35%) of the total number of ships are associated with a targeted flag State; this proportion is approximate for each size category: 36% for the medium sized ship category, 32% for the large category and the very large.

For the targeted flag States, general cargo ships are the most common ship category in number (21.7%), but bulk carriers are the most common ship type category by tonnage (44%). This is expected considering that these two ship types are the most common with respect to the total number of ships and tonnage (19.9% and 35.1%, respectively).

In comparison, oil and chemical tankers (20.4%), bulk carriers (18.1%), and general cargo ships (17.9%), have a larger proportion of the total number of ships originating from non-targeted flag States.

The report states the majority of maritime traffic occurs in the Mediterranean Sea (12%) and Asia (39%), with both geographical areas accounting for 51% of the total sightings reported to Equasis. In respect to ship size, small sized ships were predominately sighted in the Mediterranean Sea (39.9%) while very large ships in Asia (41.1%). (see below table & graph)

Further details may be found by reading EMSA report here below,

http://emsa.europa.eu/emsa-homepage/2-news-a-press-centre/news/2839-equasis-annual-report-published2016.html

Transfers By Personnel Basket

The transfer of personnel between vessels and installations using personnel baskets has been common practice in the offshore oil and gas industry for many years and the hazards are well known. However, seafarers on cargo vessels are less likely to participate in such transfers and may not be familiar with this activity or the potential hazards. With an increasing number of tankers being requested to conduct personnel transfers by basket during Ship to Ship (STS) operations and at offshore terminals, it is important that seafarers recognize the risks involved.

This Bulletin is intended to provide seafarers with an understanding of personnel basket transfers and the precautionary measures that should be taken to reduce the risk of incidents. The details may also be used as an aide memoire by seafarers working on vessels in the offshore industry and as a reference tool by companies when drafting appropriate procedures for the Safety Management System (SMS). In addition, flag states, local authorities, the industry sector, industry associations and charterers may have specific requirements regarding personnel basket transfers which should also be taken into account. Vessels that may conduct personnel transfers by basket should be guided by suitable SMS procedures covering all aspects of the operation.

http://www.westpandi.com/globalassets/loss-prevention/loss-prevention-bulletins/west-of-england---loss-prevention-bulletin---transfers-by-personnel-basket.pdf

In latest issue of North P&I Club’s loss prevention newsletter Signals, the Club provides detailed advice for ship owners on how to ensure a smooth and successful promotion of their chief mates to the all-important role of master.  The Club notes that there is need for a structured approach to training and refers to the obvious basics, such as STCW, while sheds focus on mentoring, pastoral care and the Master’s SOLAS safety ‘trump card’.

Once a ship owner has selected one or more chief officers for promotion to captain, a comprehensive program of training and coaching should be put in place to ensure they are fully prepared to assume command. In addition to achieving the necessary STCW certification, the program should include learning about mentoring, pastoral care and their over-riding safety duties under SOLAS.

The Club suggests using a simple checklist so that there is proof of the key skills being assessed. This might include:

Ø  The relevant section from your or ship manager’s SMS. Relevant ‘Guides for Ship Master’ from various organizations. Something like STCW Part A and Part B Chapter VIII.

Ø  Relevant ‘Guides for Ship Master’ from various organizations

Ø  Something like STCW Part A and Part B Chapter VIII

Gillespie says all masters need to understand how to be good mentors, enabling them to pass on their valuable experience to officers and crew and thereby improve job competence throughout their ships.

‘Chief officers chosen for promotion will have already benefited from being mentored by masters and other officers, but they should be given specific training in mentoring skills to ensure the process continues.’

 Just like pastoral care training there should be training in how to be a good mentor. Unless the Master understands the need for this function then it is difficult to assess and develop competency

Captains also need to be able to provide good leadership and pastoral care. ‘This is essential to ensure crewmembers are happy and enjoy their work. Chief officers in line for promotion should therefore have training on promoting and championing good pastoral care on board. Pastoral care is not rocket science: it’s simply a case of creating a strong on-board “family”, with the master at the head.’, he also says.

Pastoral care is not rocket science. It might sound cheesy but it’s as simple as being a strong ‘on board family’. With internet access becoming a must have rather than a luxury, crew family problems are instant. Crew must feel that despite being isolated from their families at home they have the bond and close support of their ‘on board family’. For example, if the motorman is acting strangely someone must notice and ask why. The Master as the head of the ‘on board family’ must be told, or hopefully if he is a good leader he will have noticed himself.

The Master must also be striving for better and safer crew performance. For example, he should see control of hours of work and rest as a key factor for a happy crew that will enjoy their work a lot more. Such rules are there for a purpose. In marine accident reports, fatigue is usually identified as a factor. All Masters should be briefed on how to manage fatigue on board through robust control of hours of work and rest.

Gillespie further says that all would-be masters must fully understand their over-riding responsibilities under SOLAS for the safety of people and the environment. If the Master takes a safety decision that overrides all other issues or influences then he must understand that to do so requires a significant reason. He must be able to show how and why he took that decision. He needs to accumulate good evidence at the time and make it known at the time. It does not look good when you put together evidence after the event!

‘SOLAS V regulation 34-1 states that masters are free to take any decision which, in their professional judgement, is necessary for the safety of life at sea and protection of the marine environment. Understanding this all-powerful duty needs to be a vital part of preparing chief officers for command.’

In conclusion, Gillespie reminds ship owners that running ships is a joint task between the on-board management team and the ship operations team ashore.

‘Both teams need to contribute to training and coaching chief officers for command. The more this becomes part of the safety culture of the company, the better prepared chief officers will be to make the big step up to captain.’

North P&I Club’s latest issue of Signals (October 2016) provides information relating to loss prevention and other topics of interest to those engaged in the business of operating ships both at sea and on shore. You may find it by clicking here below,

http://www.nepia.com/media/485419/NORTH-Signals-Issue-105-SP.PDF

York-Antwerp Rules 2016 – What Has Changed?

Introduction

The York-Antwerp Rules 2016 were adopted by the Comité Maritime International at its last conference in New York in May 2016 with no dissenting votes and only one abstention. The revision was mainly initiated by the marine insurance industry. The last revision of the rules dates back to 2004. However, the 2004 rules had not been accepted by ship owners – the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO) was not prepared to incorporate the 2004 rules into its standard contracts, but kept the reference to the 1994 version. In contrast, shortly after the approval of the rules by the Comité Maritime International, BIMCO announced that its standard contracts will now refer to the 2016 version of the rules. In view of this, it can be expected that the latest version will soon become widespread and it will be only a matter of time until the first adjustments are made based on the new rules.

Rules in German law

Under German law, the York-Antwerp Rules are treated as standard terms and conditions and as such, they are subject to the sections in the Civil Code which deal with unfair contract terms (cf Sections 305 to 310 of the Civil Code). Accordingly, valid incorporation of the rules into a contract is governed by the same rules applying to standard terms and conditions as business-to-consumer and business-to-business transactions – for example, proper notice before or at the conclusion of the contract is required and the rules must comply with German law on general contract terms (ie, they must not be unfair, unreasonable or unclear). In this context, the German rules on general average that can be found in Section 588ff of the Commercial Code are also relevant, although these rules are expressly excluded according to the York-Antwerp Rule of Interpretation. The exclusion of Section 588ff is allowed, as German general average rules are not mandatory standard terms. However, the German general average rules remain important and will be applied to supplement any lacuna in the York-Antwerp Rules or other contractual terms.(1) Further, the York-Antwerp Rules must not be inconsistent with other statutory provision from which they seek to deviate (cf Section 307(2)(1) of the Civil Code) according to the German law on standard terms and conditions. Obviously, this applies only if the adjustment is subject to German law. As to the applicable law, the York-Antwerp Rules 2016, like their predecessors, do not provide for a choice of law rule. The applicable law is therefore either to be agreed by the parties or determined pursuant to the governing conflict of law rules.

Changes

Rule G(4) – non-separation agreement

Substituted expenses are to be added to the costs which would have been borne by the cargo owners if the cargo had been forwarded at the owners' cost when assessing the proportion of the allowances made in general average according to Rule G(4).

Rule VI – salvage remuneration

Rule VI relates to the allowance of salvage expenditures. It has been amended by a new paragraph, Paragraph (b), which contains five scenarios in which all parties have separate contractual or legal liability to salvors but the expenditure incurred by the parties shall nevertheless be allowed in general average. The idea behind this new rule is that in cases where parties have separate contractual or statutory liability to salvors, a general re-apportioning in general average leads to unnecessary additional costs and delay. Therefore, a readjustment should be made only when actually needed. The purpose of the five scenarios is to align differences between salved and contributory values.

All five scenarios require 'significance'. However, the meaning of 'significant' is not defined in the 2016 rules. Accordingly, its interpretation is at the discretion of the adjuster. If the parties involved do not accept the adjuster's decision, they will have to dispute the adjustment by starting proceedings according to Section 405ff of the Act on Proceedings in Family Matters and in Matters of Non-contentious Jurisdiction.

Rule XVII – temporary repairs

The existing practice of many average adjusters to exclude low-value cargoes from contribution when the costs for adjusting this cargo were disproportionate to that cargo's contribution is now included in Rule XVII (cf Rule XVII(a)(ii) final sentence). The adjuster's discretion in this respect may lead to disputes about whether it was properly exercised when disregarding cargo in the adjustment.

Rule XXIII – limitation period for contributing to general average

The 1994 rules contain no limitation period for general average contribution claims, like Rule XXIII in the 2016 rules. The limitation was first introduced in the 2004 rules. The 2016 rules adopted the 2004 provision with minor amendments.

According to Rule XXIII, any rights to general average contribution (including any rights to claim under general average bonds and guarantees) will be extinguished (ie, they cease to exist, as opposed to only the remedy being barred, unless an action is brought by the party claiming such contribution within one year following the date on which the general average adjustment is issued). In no instance can action be brought after a 'long stop' of six years from the date of termination of the common maritime adventure. The 2016 limitation is subject to mandatory rules on a time limitation in the applicable law.

German general average law contains a one-year time limit (cf Section 605(3) of the Commercial Code), but it does not begin to run before the end of the year in which the general average adjustment is issued (cf Section 607(4) of the Commercial Code). It follows that the limitation period is normally longer than the one under Rule XXIII, which begins earlier. The same applies to the six-year 'long stop', which is 10 years under German law (cf Section 199(4) of the Civil Code). However, it is generally accepted that this does not lead to an invalidity of the Rule XXIII limitation period under the provisions governing standard terms and conditions.

Further amendments

Further amendments to the 2016 rules concern the commission rule in Rule XX of the 1994 verision, which was dropped in the 2016 rules. Rule XXI (interest on losses allowed in general average) and Rule XXII (treatment of cash deposits) were amended, as were Rule B (tug and tow), Rule E (provision of information to adjusters), Rule XI(c)(ii) (widening the port charges interpretation in view of the Trade Green Shipping decision,(2) Rule XIII(3) and (4) (deductions from costs of repairs) and Rule XXII (treatment of cash deposits amended in the view of anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism laws).

Comité Maritime International guidelines

The Comité Maritime International New York Conference has, for the first time, introduced guidelines for general average to go along with the revised 2016 rules. These guidelines are non-binding and are supposed to reflect best practice, as well as to provide general background information and outline the procedures. They can be downloaded from Comité Maritime International's website.

Comment

Based on the BIMCO decision to incorporate the 2016 rules into its standard contracts, the amendments appear to have been accepted by the ship-owning community.

From a German law perspective, the amendments comply with the law on standard terms and conditions.

The adjuster's discretion to disregard low-value expenditure and to re-apportion salvage expenditure only in specific cases seems to promise time and cost savings. However, this may have been achieved at the expense of parties now arguing with adjusters over how discretion is exercised and starting proceedings under the Act on Proceedings in Family Matters and in Matters of Non-contentious Jurisdiction, which is costly and time consuming.