that containers with mis-declared weights are being loaded onto vessels is proof that either, ports and/ or stevedores are practising wilful blindness to mis-declared weights or the handling equipment’s weight function is disabled. Shipowners could enforce detection of containers with mis-declared weights by insisting on handling equipment operating as designed; by requiring ports and/or stevedores to provide DPAs with certification from equipment safety auditors confirming operability of the weight function; and requiring ports to enforce WHS penalties against shippers of offending containers. A measure that would concentrate the minds of shippers of offending containers, would be their international black- listing after one strike, because safety should not require three!
DPA to be
responsible for oversighting
loading plans The DPA was recommended by the UKs MS Notice No 1188, (July 1986):
“Every company operating ships should designate a person ashore with responsibility for monitoring the technical and safety aspects of the operation of its ships and for providing appropriate shore-based back-up.”
The Hon Mr Justice Sheen, referred to this person in his Investigative Report (para 14.2) into the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster in 1987:
This is very sound advice. It is advice which ought to have been unnecessary. A well-run ship- owning company should have been organised in that manner before receiving the Notice.
The IMO requires the DPA to have, inter alia, the experience to:
Gather and analyse data from hazardous occurrences, hazardous situations, near misses, incidents and accidents and apply the lessons learnt to improve the safety management system within the Company and its ships.
The required experience indicates that a DPAs responsibility is active rather than passive, because they are required to analyse accidents and apply the lessons or recommendations to their company’s ships. DPAs should be made responsible for checking container loading plans’ compliance with the CSM, as per of shore-based support to the master. A computerised loading program with fail-safe mechanisms, would facilitate such compliance. The DPA would, as earlier noted, also respond to alerts from container cranes lifting containers with mis- declared weights.
Container stacks to be secured as a block unit
Securing a container stack as a block unit requires lashing bars with turnbuckles, fitted manually between the bases of each tier of containers and lashing eyes or plates on the deck below. With the existing container securing system, only containers stacked three or four high can be secured as a block unit with lashing bars, because the weight of the lashing bars can be handled safely by stevedores. Containers stacked above the 4th tier cannot be secured as block units because the length and weight of the lashing bars required to secure them as block units, are unsafe for handling by stevedores. Because containers stacked above the 4th tier cannot be secured as block units, the container stacks become susceptible to collapse during heavy weather. This means that the existing container securing system is defective. Every shipowner knows that the existing defective container securing system is present on their vessels before, and at the commencement of their voyages. Shipowners who claim ignorance of this defect, leave themselves open to criticism for two reasons: their internal investigation into container stack collapses either on their own, or their competitors’ vessels, if conducted with due diligence, would have readily identified this defect; secondly, it would demonstrate wilful
106 | The Report • September 2022 • Issue 101
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
