|
A SAFETY FLASH
The Marine Safety Forum
continues to issue safety flashes and a good thing they are. Of course in a
no blame culture one can't actually identify the vessels or the people
involved, since if one did the information would be held against some-one. I
have heard of the numbers of "near misses" being considered as too many by
the charterers of ships, which seems to go against the grain. Surely if the
crew have identified the circumstances which came close to injuring
some-one, and have reported and recorded it, this indicates responsible
behaviour which should as far as possible keep them safe, and if their
approach to safety is mirrored by their approach to operations everything
should go very well.
All that being said the
MSF recently reported an event on an anchor-handler which seems to warrant
close scrutiny. Apparently when an anchor was being lifted off the deck of
an un-named vessel it spun round and the tail pennant came close to nailing
a contractor and a crew member who where doing something else on the deck.
This event seems to by
symptomatic of a general lack of appreciation of how difficult it is to lift
stuff safely, even if everyone is paying attention. To have other people
working in the vicinity of lifting operations seems to be at the very least
irresponsible, or maybe not. Perhaps they just don't have the right rules.
There were eight recommendations relating to this event, but it seemed to me
that they hedged round the actual requirement. The deck of a supply ship is
a working area when lifts are being lifted or landed, and surely while this
is happening access to anyone not directly involved should be prevented.
PIRATE ACTIVITY
Professor Captain Edgar
Gold has written at length about the current pirate problem in Seaways, the
journal of the Nautical Institute. Professor Gold is a former shipmaster and
qualified lawyer, and so knows a thing or two. The article states that
already in 2009 478 crew members have been taken hostage, and on 54
occasions ships have been fired on. Despite the presence of more than 20
naval vessel of various nations, ships passing through the area have
apparently a 1% chance of being boarded. This does not sound too serious,
but statistically it is an unacceptable level of risk.
The pirates are now
operating further and further from the coast and have apparently now stray
into Seychelles waters. The mother ships are to be found more than 750
miles from the coast. Professor Gold suggests that they probably have AIS,
which virtually removes any random element. Tellingly Professor Gold ( and
my apologies if he would rather be called Captain Gold) says that if these
hijackings were taking place on aircraft rather than ships there would be an
international outcry and a solution would be found. It seem to me that one
of the problems here is the "flag of convenience" situation. In fact,
the choice of registry by ship-owners no longer causes comment to the point
that there is no such thing as a flag of convenience. But if a
ship is registered in the Marshall Islands what responsibility do any of the
naval vessel have to protect it.
So if Professor Gold is
right, the naval vessels in the area should be taking action against the
mother ships under existing maritime legislation. He particularly suggest
that the "Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety
of Navigation" might be applicable with only minor modifications. Meanwhile
have the numbers of incident reduced a bit, or is no-one bothering to report
them?
Elsewhere The Telegraph
reports on the release of Captain Robin Hughes who has been held hostage by
a Nigerian group for seven months. He was captain of an anchor handler the
HD Blue Ocean, operated by Hydrodive and registered in St Vincent and the
Grenadines. The ship is a 1974 US built anchor-handler, and at the time of
the hijack there were five expats and eight Nigerians on board. If you have
a look at a picture of this ship you have to say it looks like a sitting
duck.
YACHTING
In my life as a home based
writer I listen to the radio on a fairly constant basis and occasionally
read the news reports on the BBC website. I caught a brief report on a solo
yachtswoman's attempt to sail round the UK. As a professional mariner I feel
that solo yachting is hazardous both for the solo yachtsperson and for other
vessels who come across them. I am a former yacht owner and in all honesty
being on a yacht is not a great place to be unless you are tied up stern too
in a little Greek port within sight of a line of tavernas. If I am going to
go to sea I like to be on something at least 200 ft long with 10,000 bhp
available.
So when I read on the BBC
website that the solo yachtswoman is a quadriplegic I had to get my
dictionary out. Sure enough a quadriplegic is some-one who does not have the
use of any limbs, and who apparently will control her own movement on the
boat and the sails and direction of the craft by means of bowing in a tube,
or possibly some tubes. It is difficult to imagine the determination this
requires, to get to the point of having the confidence to do this, but one
wonders whether it is extremely foolhardy. As I write this I find that I am
lost for words, so one can only wish this lady the best of luck and hope
that the myriad craft which populate our shores will be warned of her
approach.
SHIP DESIGNERS
Recently we have all
become aware that Warsilä have bought Vik-Sandvik, Conan Wu, and I think
Skipteknisk and will become a major designer of offshore vessels branded
Wartsilä Ship Designs. Doubtless they are intending to rival Rolls-Royce in
the offshore field. Rolls-Royce seem to have 36 offshore designs available,
and Vik-Sandvik alone have 24 so it does not seem too far of a stretch for
Warsila to become the biggest in the business.
But it is sad that
the pursuit of what is the 20th century measure of business success,
constant growth, results in the disappearance of small firms and therefore
their individuality. It would be optimistic in the extreme for us to expect
that the new company will produce better designs that the three individual
companies making it up have produced in the past. And we should not forget
that the reduction in individual designers reduces the choice available to
the clients.
Apparently it takes seven
years for companies which have been taken over to get back to just where
they were before the event, so we'll just have to see how it goes.
Victor Gibson.
June 2009. |