4.
A famous judgement provoked reactions of comprehension
In the matter of the sinking of the COSTA CONCORDIA, even though the civil case is far from over, the criminal judgement is done and all appeals have been exhausted. Today our colleague Francesco Schettino is alone in prison while COSTA CROISIERE, the company responsible for almost everything under the ISM code continues as if nothing had happened. (RESPONSIBLE BUT NEVER GUILTY Syndrome).
Here’s a reminder of the sentences. Captain Francesco Schettino, 16 years and 3 months in prison in ROME (REBIBBIA prison). The head of the crisis cell ashore (in this case the DPA) and the Purser/Hotel manager were sentenced to 2 years and a few months for their contribution to the mismanagement of the emergency situation while the owner CARNIVAL and the operator COSTA CROISIERE get away with a fine - 1.1 million Euros, a ridiculous sum for them. When we see the failures found by the commission of inquiry, it’s surprising and concerning.
Even if the application of the SMS on board is the responsibility of the Master, it is the responsibility of the Company (the DPA is designated for this) to verify that its system is properly applied on every ship through the Ship's Captain (via his/her constant presence/ responsibility on the premises, his/her continuous analyses and periodic reviews), then verified by the internal auditors and randomly by the DPA itself during its own inspections - when he/she does.
The list of failures found is long for COSTA CONCORDIA and there are some similarities such as the lack of adequate training of staff while we have the STCW convention since 1978, deeply amended in 2010.
5.
So, everything happens as if the responsibility of the company was hidden through the use of national legislation, which completely forgot to integrate them into its decrees for a bunch of valid reasons certainly; and so the Master always remains the best scapegoat.
Today, and we have seen it, the courts continue to ignore the ISM code, which is one of the pillars of maritime safety preferring to let everything on the incapacity or human error of the Master alone.
We thought the lawyers were going to clarify all this. Among other things, our colleague Philip ANDERSON, (more lawyer than captain), who had started well as a great connoisseur of the judicial consequences of the ISM code, shunted this aspect of things and today he is drowned in business!
For my part, I had been called by the contracted law firm for TOTAL in the ERIKA case, in order to explain to them what the ISM code was, then, still surprised by the few cases that the maritime lawyers continue to make of the responsibilities of companies in the application of the Code, I offered to provide free training to a large specialized Parisian law-firm, but guess what? The answer was no thank you, we are not interested!
A lawyer, on the other hand, encouraged me, 10 years ago, to publish a handbook on the ISM code (it should be done soon) because apparently the developments in French that they use were insufficient. (Indeed, the book Safety regulations on board merchant ships published in 2004 does not help much on this subject, being only a succession of paraphrases of the text of the code like other supposedly specialized French documents.)
However, there are currently some weak signals of change!
Today some weak signals, consideration of the company’s responsibility in accidents seems to be slowly evolving
The ISM code is quite clear in Chapter 3.2: the company should define or establish in writing the responsibilities, powers and reciprocal relationships of all safety management personnel.
But, in the last few cases of accidents, the Master was often considered to be solely responsible for the non-enforcement of the regulations or procedures of the company’s SMS!
His/her scapegoat role seems to be confirmed every time, but we keep some hope, because in the following studies some weak signal seem to be appearing.
98 | ISSUE 110 | DEC 2024 | THE REPORT
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
