PSC inspection Severity
Ship related factors were mostly Low (green flagged) based on the previous ship’s and manager’s PSC history under the MoU.
Although the manager’s PSC history under the MoU was assessed as medium risked, some parameters were specifically red flagged:
- The manager’s Deficiency per Inspection in Port
- The manager’s Detention Profile vs Port Detainable Items
- The manager’s Deficiency Profile vs Port Top 20 Deficiency Codes
The most dangerous set of parameters was the Port related factors which are assessed to be high risk (red flag) shown below which are higher than relevant ports worldwide for General Cargo Ships’ inspections.
- Port Deficiency Codes spread - Port Detention Ratio over 12 months
Additionally, the Concentrated Inspection Campaign on Fire Safety was in progress during ship’s PSC inspection.
Taking into consideration the above Inspection Probability and Inspection Severity, the overall POCRA assessment was that the call risk was High, and this should have been sufficient to act as an alert to be prepared.
Root Causes
Almost 90% of ships being detained have zero detentions in the 36 months prior. Research has provided evidence that ships are being detained for the following key reasons:
a) Inadequate identification that the ship will be inspected. It was evident in this case by the end result.
b) Inadequate preparation by the crew as far as the ship’s is concerned. Numerous deficiencies found in the areas where weekly inspections are due such as FFA, safety of navigation, propulsion and machinery are testimony to that.
c) Inadequate MLC implementation. The living and working conditions on board show gaps from the level required by common good practice.
The lessons to be Learned
There are several lessons to be learned from this case.
- The ship’s MLC preparation and implementation on board was of a low level.
- Four deficiencies on life saving appliances are too many, as the SOLAS weekly inspections cover such issues.
- The two detainable deficiencies on Fire Safety indicate that there was no CiC awareness advance or preparation.
- As PSC inspections aim to identify safety gaps onboard, having too many technical/ procedural issues unattended will probably lead to detention.
About RISK4SEA Port Call Risk Assessment
- Extreme caution should be exercised with the handling of the ISM Codes. It is recommended that an additional audit onboard the ship is carried out to verify the SMS implementation (regardless of whether or not this is required by the PSCO or not).
The Port Call Risk Assessment (POCRA) is an automated Risk Assessment of the ship, the manager and port specific risk factors. It generates a detailed focused PSC Inspection Checklist which helps to prepare for a PSC inspection.
THE REPORT | DEC 2023 | ISSUE 106 | 119
PSC Inspection Result
The ship docked at Immingham and PSCO boarded to inspect and to check the ship’s safety status and condition. The result of the PSC inspection was 20 deficiencies, 4 of which were detainable. As is expected in such situations, the code 15150 - ISM was marked to engage the manager to provide verification of the ISM Implementation on board through an ISM Audit.
The breakdown of the Deficiency Areas that the ship found to be unsafe were:
POCRA preparation checklist
If the vessel had used the POCRA preparation checklist, the findings may have produced a different outcome. The POCRA checklist in Immingham for bulk carriers generates a full and specific checklist including 48 items. This checklist includes all detainable items identified during inspection. If the vessel had prepared properly the detention could have been avoided.
Source: RISK4SEA
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
