IMCA news
Looking back for inspiration to achieve higher safety levels
April 2012 was, as everyone is aware, the 100th anniversary of the sinking of Titanic – and an apt time therefore for reflection on safety standards
T
he IMO website states: “The first maritime treaties date back to the 19th century. Later, the Titanic disaster of 1912 spawned the first international safety of life at sea – SOLAS – convention, still the most important treaty addressing maritime safety. The Convention establishing the International Maritime Organization (IMO) was adopted in Geneva in 1948 and IMO first met in 1959.” “IMCA is honoured to have observer status at the IMO which has striven to improve maritime safety over the years and achieved a
huge amount,” said Hugh Williams,
chief executive of the International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA), noting that Titanic is often seen as the trigger for better subdivision and the provision of sufficient lifeboats for all personnel on board. “With the sophisticated designs of ships
available
for owners today, and with better equipment, we are indeed fortunate to have a fantastic fleet across all types of ships. The newbuilds in the marine construction fleet are undoubtedly some of the most innovative vessels ever seen,” he explained. “Just months before Titanic’s anniversary
the Costa Concordia incident was seen by many in the maritime world as a ‘wake-up’ call – and, sadly, there have been others, perhaps more immediately relevant to our industry, such as Bourbon Dolphin and Macondo (Deepwater Horizon). These incidents show the need for continuous improvement and, in some cases, timely updating of international treaties to properly reflect modern shipping and the outlook of the maritime world. “IMO’s adoption of major revisions to the International
Convention on Standards of
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (the STCW convention), which took effect in January of this year, is a fine example of how we are moving forward. “The revisions take account of changes in technology and emphasis (for example, additional training requirements on resource management
www.osjonline.com
Bourbon Dolphin had a profound effect on the industry
and proactive pollution prevention) and address specific offshore issues, such as guidance for OSV personnel and the training and experience of dynamic positioning operators.
“Changes in legislation and working practices further enforce the ‘safety first’ message – here I am thinking particularly of the rapidly developing offshore renewables sector, where it is essential that the lessons learned from other areas of offshore operations and construction, the largest being the offshore oil and gas industry, are fed into daily operations by means of using standard practices and industry materials,” said Mr Williams. The revision of the Special Purpose Ships
Code (SPS) in 2008 introduced a different approach to the classification of unusual vessel types, and the IMO has tabled new proposals for stability of tugs and anchor handlers in the wake of the Bourbon Dolphin incident.
Classification of workboats and crew transfer vessels in the offshore renewable energy sector is also under consideration by the IMO. While some of these developments may be contentious, they are part and parcel of trying to ensure legislation is current and fit for purpose. Thoughts of Titanic lead almost automatically to consideration of lifeboats. Several pieces of work are ongoing across different work streams from various
organisations. “The average
lifeboat occupant’s weight is being scrutinised by individual administrations – IMO has already increased the average weight requirements for new lifeboats, but the latest discussions for IMCA members are about OSVs that count as
‘installations’, and reflect the growing size of offshore workers,” Mr Williams told OSJ. As he noted, a cross-industry lifeboat workgroup has been looking at hook design suitability and standardisation following a number of incidents, and fed into the new IMO on-load release hook design requirements, which have now been finalised.
In the very specific cases of lifeboats on future builds for (diver) hyperbaric evacuation, the planning and design as well as standardisation are being discussed through an IMCA-led industry-wide workgroup. The standards subgroup has focused its attention on establishing common technical interfaces for hyperbaric lifeboats and reception facilities. The proposal has been finalised and sent out for an industry-wide consultation including users, manufacturers,
classification, and oil
companies as well as all those who took part in the informal discussions.
“IMCA has a role in all of these challenging areas – to represent the interests of our members who are the owners and operators of offshore construction and support vessels,” Mr Williams said. “We carry out this role through our involvement at IMO and connections with other legislative bodies, and standard setting entities like the classification societies, and by means of cross-industry workgroups. We endeavour to keep members apprised of documents for comment and changes agreed, as well as representing members through lobbying and on committees where appropriate.” OSJ
Offshore Support Journal I June 2012 I 77
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200