Even if no accident disrupts this type of modern management, the lack of a bypass or double backup link with the highest level brings us back to a HOFE risk so unbearable that the ISM Code would be considered a waste of time in this regard! *3
So, if a designated person is independent of the operations manager and ensures the operation of an SMS resolutely created to modernise and ensure such operations worthy of the progress of our century, we are "compliant" with a modern international standard, the ISM Code ... that was the goal!
On the other hand, the lack of independence in monitoring the SMS operating circuit does nothing to change the risk created by a possible blockage in the CEO's
information and only gives this designated person additional responsibilities ... perhaps detrimental to efficiency?
Who knows?
It's back to the beginning ... which should not allow the issuance of a DOC to the Company and, consequently, an SMC for each of the Company's vessels either! *4
WARNING: In the event of an accident, the presiding judge will likely reflect: if the DPA had been independent of the traditional sector, could the accident have been avoided?
This means that the risk of an accident persists, and also that the DPA/Operations Manager/Marine superintendent risks ... double sentence in court!
7-CONCLUSION
The circulars we have just studied were imposed following studies conducted by the IMO on the level of application, internationally speaking, of the ISM Code.
Today, the application of the ISM Code is fortunately much, much better!
Indeed, at the beginning, the implementation was a bit harsh we would say, including in our countries. It therefore turned out that for the Code itself, the general terms option was not the right one. That we needed to clarify much more through circulars to try to « right the course » as quickly as possible and as much as possible, because we were heading towards a predictable disaster and the definitive discrediting of the Code!
The IMO did not beat itself up over this, however, I do recall roughly the terms used by William O'Neil († 2012), the IMO Secretary-General at the time, at the working group when the drafting of the ISPS Code was launched: "be more specific than for the ISM Code, and this time, don't forget training!" … I remember I was there!
While clarifications on the original function of the DPA were absolutely necessary, we could have gone further in training the seafarers themselves, who had the same difficulty applying the code for the same reasons mentioned above. STCW is currently undergoing a major overhaul, and we hope that seafarers' suggestions will be taken into account by creating ISM modules that are part of the training of all crew members and adapted to their level of responsibility on board, as required by the preamble to the ISM Code itself.
I think it would be a good idea ... ‘putting the cart behind the horse’ would be a smart “land-based” response, even in our maritime industry!
Cdt Bertrand APPERRY HonFIIMS
"JEUNE MARINE- AFCAN AFEXMAR HYDROS" (4/2024)
bertrand.apperry@
orange.fr
original in French - translation 2025 *1 These circulars are now under review at IMO (HTW subcommittee working group)
*2 Confidentiality in the application of the ISM Code is a topic that also deserves its own study in the future. *3 The "HOFE" risk (“blocking risk”) should normally be already included in the Risk Assessment study of ships’ operations.
*4 Some heresies still persist today, such as the DPA who conducts internal audits or the marine superintendent of the Company is the DPA. Perhaps this would deserve a future analysis of these incompatibilities by myself!
84 | ISSUE 115 | MAR 2026 | 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 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156
