The situation is near alarming, compared to even half a
decade ago, when Shipmasters and Chief Engineers were already cribbing about dropping
competence standards at sea. But then, all the elements of this perfect storm
have been in place for a while, so it is not surprising that more whitecaps are
visible today and that the barometer is dropping fast. And this storm- the competence
race to the bottom- is picking up energy and moving ashore too, to Superintendents,
DPAs, and other maritime professionals. It will get worse, and it will have a
huge impact on safety at sea and the maritime environment.
To me, the first- but by no means the only- problem was
always that commitment to safety was never embedded in the business models of
most players in the industry. Nobody wants an accident, of course, and
everybody says so, but few are willing to put their money where their lip
service is. Commitment to safety must go beyond and must involve raising intake
and training standards and complying- in letter and spirit- with regulations.
This has simply not happened; in fact, it has gotten worse in recent times, magnified
by the downturn and the fact that more and more players today make their money
buying and selling ships rather than operating them. Speculatory business
models hardly think long-term.
Many more incompetent or inexperienced officers are being
sent on ships today by managers who know fully well what the risks of doing
this entail. Creativity in circumventing regulations has taken new turns. Just
one example: During MLC inspections, a couple of States started scrutinising the
overtime figures on crews’ pay slips to check if the rest hour sheets were
fudged. A well-known manager’s response? Instruct Masters to continue to fudge
the rest hour sheets and show the overtime payment as a ‘bonus’ on the pay slip
instead. Fatigue- a major proven contributor to accidents- is ok. Being caught
is not.
New regulation has worsened the already crippling administrative
load on ships. Although a few companies have moved minor clerical work ashore
(payroll or victualing, for example), the majority have not. Masters remain
overwhelmed by emails, most of them worthless, which every minor shore functionary
wants an immediate reply to. Dropping
standards amongst marine superintendents add energy to the perfect storm; one
Master complained recently to me that he was being sent copy and paste jobs
from a google search in response to a machinery problem!
More junior officers are inexperienced, ill trained and incompetent
today. New technology adds to this collapse of standards, especially when
senior officers are found wanting too. The grounding of the Ovit off Varne is a
prime example, where ECDIS alarms were not working, the wrong scale of chart was
in use and normal seamanship forgotten. Much worse is the fact that the Master
did not know how to operate the ECDIS properly; he relied on equally
incompetent junior officers. And that dangerous navigational marks were sighted
by the lookout- and reported -but were disregarded by an officer who only went
by his flawed use and interpretation of the ECDIS.
Almost frightening, because anybody who has sailed in the
last decade understands too easily why this sort of thing is common. All of us understand
too well how catastrophically this can affect basic navigational safety.
Despite the known effect of low morale on safety, owners’ commitment
to the rights and welfare of seamen has also dropped. The MLC2006 is hardly
going to change hardened mind-sets. No wonder statistics say that, since the
entry into force of the MLC, ‘detainable deficiencies were most frequently
recorded in the areas “payment of wages” (39.5%), and “manning levels for the
ship” (28.6%). Other areas with high deficiency levels are “health and safety
and accident prevention” (43.1%), “food and catering” (15.4%) and
“accommodation” (10%).
Are you surprised? I am not. Nothing will improve as long as
everybody in shipping is focused on just making money at the expense of
everything else. It should be obvious why this mind-set impacts safety
negatively and massively.
We should also be considering the fact that this mind-set is
the reason why most youngsters consider seafaring a third rate profession, and
how low-calibre intake has a direct impact on safety. We should consider that
we are growing junior officers at a time when professional maritime pride has
been hammered into non-existence. By the time these juniors become seniors,
their ability to say an authoritative no to a potentially unsafe act- whether
proposed by the owners, managers or crew- has been eroded significantly.
That erosion is well underway already, including with Chief
Officers waiting for their first Command. Who treat everything the managers and
owners say as gospel. Who will rarely dare to say no to any directive, unsafe
or not, that comes out of the mouths of these deities, and neither will they
contradict anything written on paper, especially if it is part of a good
looking manual.
They are the eye of this perfect storm.
.
.
3 comments:
Dear Manu,
Thanks for an insightful post! This is why I follow your blog, and refer my friends to it, too.
This perfect storm you speak of is slow-developing but powerful, and its effects are being felt worldwide. See this Maritime Executive post (if you haven't already) regarding similar developments in Australia:
http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/Thinking-Outside-the-Box-on-Cabotage-2014-12-06
And I can say that much of what you and Sandy Gailbraith have to say applies from the American perspective, too.
I also thought that what Mr. Gailbraith noted about the Danish system should be very instructive to anyone in the maritime realm, anywhere else in the world - including the U.S. and India.
Oddly, in spite of the fact that maritime matters should be of first importance to India, Australia and the U.S. - as all three are highly dependent upon a healthy merchant marine - we all seem to give maritime issues very short shrift.
When the time comes to pay the piper, though, the bill will be steep - and not quickly paid.
That's on the national economic scale. But on the scale of the individual seafarer, the ill effects are present and ongoing!
However, neither the prudent, long-term economic view nor the welfare of the individual seaman are being considered for one second by those who see profits today - for themselves, and no one else - to be the measuring stick of modern maritime business.
Reid
Yes, the Danish model (of which I was quite unaware until your link, thanks)is one of the ways to go.
Overall, though, shipping needs to correct one basic misconception. Seamen are not a cost. They are a big reason why you make money.
Yes, and it's funny how money expended on equipment is regarded as an 'investment', but money expended on people is considered a 'cost', like fuel. How different would our industry (and the world) be if people were considered an investment?
Post a Comment