Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:36 pm Page 1

The Human Factor

A report on manning
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:36 pm Page 2

THE HUMAN FACTOR

A REPORT ON MANNING

This report analyses data which has been collected by the Association’s Ship
Inspectors and examines it with the aim of putting into perspective some of the
more commonly expressed views about the manning of ships today.

This report is based upon a study of the Club’s records which was carried out by the Institute of
Maritime Law in Southampton. We wish to acknowledge gratefully the work done by the Institute
in preparing their report and to thank them for their continuing co-operation.

Thomas Miller P&I, agents for the Managers of the United Kingdom Mutual Steam Ship
Assurance Association (Bermuda) Ltd.
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:36 pm Page 1

Introduction

For many years ship inspections tended to concentrate on the physical condition
of a ship and little time was spent on what might have been considered to be a
more important area for concern – the performance of the officers and crew and
the manner in which the ship was operated. The report of the Marine Accident
Investigation Board on the “Marchioness” and “Bow Belle” commented: “for
many years there has been a widespread lack of appreciation of operational
matters ... a preoccupation with technology and the details of ships’ equipment
at the expense of regard for the ship’s operating function as a whole.”
The importance of the human element, or the ‘people factor’ as it is
sometimes called, is well established: the Club’s own Analysis of Major claims
underlines this significance. Below is a chart which illustrates the main causes of
major claims. At least half the claims under review are considered to be caused
by human error although in certain types of incident – collisions for example –
the proportion is much higher.
Cases of structural failure or of machinery failure may themselves be caused
partly or wholly by poor standards of maintenance or bad practice.

Table 1. Main causes of major P&I claims

Deck officer error 25%

Engineering officer error 2%

Equipment failure 8%

Mechanical failure 5%
Crew error 17%

Pilot error 5%

Shore error 14%

Various other causes 14%

Structural failure 10%

Table 2. Main types of major P&I claims

Cargo 39%
Deck officer error 25%
Engineering officer error 2%

Collision 8%
Equipment failure 8%

Mechanical failure 5%
Crew error damage
17% Other 2%
Property 10%
Pilot error 5%
Non-crew injury 8%
Pollution 5%
Wreck removal 1%
Unrecoverable GA 2%
Fines 2% Shore error 14%
Crew injury 23%
Various other causes 14%
(The figures in Tables 1 and 2 are approximate)

1
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:36 pm Page 2

Manning

Manning has now become an increasingly important factor in the regulation of

ships both by international convention and national law, for example:

■ The STCW Convention (1978) amended in 1995. (Manning

scales and certification.)

■ The International Safety Management Code (Chapter IX of the

SOLAS Convention.)

■ SOLAS (Inter-related questions of crew training and skills in

various areas.)

■ The US Oil Pollution Act 1990 (OPA90) (Manning and management

of the ship both ashore and afloat.)

Each year the Club’s Ship Inspectors visit five or six hundred ships and during
their inspections attempt, among other considerations, to assess subjectively
the standard of crew performance. Each visit offers also an opportunity to
gather information about officers and crew in terms of nationality, age, language
and under other significant headings. Since January 1993, the inspectors have
been routinely collecting such information. Samples of the questionnaires used
are attached. (Appendices A & B.)
Over the twelve month period under review a total of 555 ships were visited
and detailed information about the officers and crew was recorded, thus
providing a snapshot of the manning situation in a substantial sample of ships
from the current Club fleet. The data that was collected has been analysed and
reviewed by the Institute of Maritime Law in Southampton and by the managers’
agents in London. The purpose of this report is to present the data in an
objective manner, attempting to put into perspective some of the views most
commonly expressed about the manning of ships today.
The term ‘human element’ is now commonly used but there are several
constituent factors which are each worthy of separate consideration. Fatigue, for
example, undoubtedly plays a significant part in accidents. Ships are required to
operate twenty four hours a day and so also are ships’ crews. The effects of
working around the clock and the disturbance of the normal rhythm of people’s
waking days in the maritime industry is a field worthy of further research.

Human Factors

■ Fatigue ■ Experience
■ Morale ■ Conditions of service
■ Motivation ■ Environment
■ Loyalty ■ Language
■ Training ■ Management policies
■ Standards of certification

2
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:36 pm Page 3

The quality of a ship’s crew has a direct bearing on the ship’s overall
performance. It is not necessarily true to say that sub-standard ships always
have sub-standard crews but a sub-standard crew almost certainly means a sub-
standard ship. Generalisation is dangerous. For example, mixed crews may in
general be thought to be undesirable but there are undisputably many ships
with mixed crews or third world crews which are operated to the highest
standards. In the 1990s, ensuring that a ship is properly as well as economically
manned, is not easy. Shipowners regularly delegate specific tasks to
independent agents. The use of such agents and, in particular, the use of
crewing agents, can in some instances distance the shipowner from his crew and
the crews themselves may lose any sense of identity with the owner’s interests.
The relative decline in the numbers of ships sailing under traditional maritime
flags, together with the associated or perhaps coincidental reduction in the
numbers of experienced seafarers trained in those countries, has altered career
patterns with changes in responsibilities, career development, depth of training
and in the levels of experience to be found among officers and ratings.
The need to reduce costs is evident in a climate of depression and
overtonnage. Owners have always used cheap crews and there is nothing new
about the employment of mixed crews. The inspectors found that, of the ships
visited, 56% had mixed crews.

Table 3. Nationality of full crew

Single
nationality
crew
Mixed
nationality
crew

When the nationality of officers and crews was examined separately, it was found
that 32% of ships had officers who were predominantly from the European
Union and 30% from Eastern European countries. Ratings, on the other hand,
were more likely to come from the Far East and Asia: in 32% of ships, the
ratings were predominantly from South East Asia with 12% from the Far-east
and 7% from the rest of Asia. (See Tables 21 and 23.)
Two tentative conclusions may be drawn. Firstly, a ship may typically have
European officers and South East Asian ratings. Secondly, a substantial
percentage of officers and ratings are recruited from less expensive sources.
Given the relatively low level of sub-standard ships, there is clearly no
evidence to support the view that ships with cheap crews are necessarily
poor ships.

3
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:36 pm Page 4

The decision as to where to flag a ship is governed by several factors including

taxation and administrative convenience, but another point to be taken into
consideration is the law of the flag state and whether this will restrict the free
choice of nationality of the crew. Some flag states seek to protect their own
seafarers by requiring a proportion of the officers and ratings of registered ships
to be nationals of that state. This is not a universal approach and it is broadly
true that the more liberal flag states rarely regulate crewing in this way.

SUMMARY
Mistakes are a part of human experience. However, good management policies,
effective training and the possession of appropriate qualifications and
experience are all factors which may be expected to reduce the incidence of
human errors.

■ An undermanned or badly manned ship is sub-standard.

■ A ship with serious manning deficiencies is unseaworthy.

■ Manning is increasingly a factor in the regulation of shipping.

■ Manning and management have a clear significance in assessing the

ship’s overall quality.

4
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:36 pm Page 5

Directly and indirectly managed ships

A high percentage of the ships visited (73%) were owner operated, although this
does not necessarily mean that the owners made no use of specialised agencies,
such as crewing agencies. The remainder (27%) were considered to be exclusively
operated by a professional management company on the owner’s behalf.

Table 4. Operator

Manager operated

Owner operated

It is widely supposed that management companies may employ crews that do

not display the committed involvement traditionally expected. In this
connection, the Ship Inspectors examined two matters:

■ The existence and effectiveness of management policies and

■ The allocation of responsibility for the vessel’s current condition.

MANAGEMENT POLICIES
Nowadays an increasingly common management tool is the policy statement.
This concept finds a place in modern legislation and in the context of shipping
this includes the ISM Code and Vessel Response plans (SOPEPS) as now
required under the United States OPA90. The assumption lying behind the
adoption of management policies is that increased understanding of
responsibilities and systems will lead to better performance. However, the mere
existence of a written policy is not sufficient: to be effective, the policy must be
active. A written plan of action in case of collision or pollution for example, is of
little value if it is known only to the master and shore staff.
Most ships have, or claim to have, management policies. The Ship Inspectors
found that most ships (84% owner operated and 82% manager operated) have
management policies in place. Of these, 97% of all ships (97% owner operated
and 98% manager operated) declared such policies to be active. It is possible
that this figure may be underestimated since some operators may in fact
operate such policies without describing them as such. Furthermore, since the
programme of visits was designed to assess the standards of entered ships, it
was in part used to target groups of ships that were considered likely to have
problems. It would seem likely that the true picture for entered ships may be
even better.

5
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:36 pm Page 6

Table 5. Active Management Policies

29% 27%

71%
73%

Without AMP With AMP

Owner operated Manager operated

AMP: Active Management Policy

The existence of Active Management Policies (AMP), whether on directly or

indirectly operated ships, provides only one indication of the quality of
management, including crew management. Size and standing must play a part.
Many top quality leading ship management companies like many leading
owners, will have quality assurance programmes, traditions of good
management and a well incorporated sensitivity to reputation, all of which will
combine to produce effective management systems. Active Management
Policies clearly impact upon the quality of manning. There is however, little to
distinguish in this respect, between owner or manager operated ships.
Active Management Policies can therefore be seen as an indication as to
whether each management system (either owner operated or manager
operated) accepts and actively responds to the responsibilities for safety and
operational standards. As such, it may be taken as some indication of crew
efficiency and possibly crew morale. The benefits of good communications with
and the guidance of officers through an effective management policy are likely
to be considerable. The existence of an Active Management Policy would also
appear to reduce the distance between operator and employee since the
percentage of senior officers questioned believing that they act with the owners’
interests at heart, increases with an Active Management Policy in place, as
illustrated opposite.
Loyalty, or the lack of it, clearly has an important impact on the performance
of ships’ crews. The growing practice of using crews from crew manning agencies
underlines this factor – is the seafarer loyal to his employer, the manning agent
or the operator?
As might be expected, very few officers admitted to believing that they did
not have the owner’s interests at heart. What was more surprising was that a
significant minority felt unable to be positive: 5% of Masters felt that they did
not have the owner’s interests at heart. This figure was almost halved when
there was an Active Management Policy in place. Again, contrary to popular
expectation, the numbers of disaffected masters were lower when the ship was
manager operated.

6
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:36 pm Page 7

Table 6. Loyalty
The inspectors asked each Master to state whether he felt that he had the
owners’ best interests at heart.

Owner operated vessels

Vessels without an AMP 81% 19%

Vessels with an AMP 97% 3%

All vessels 94% 6%

Manager operated vessels

Vessels without an AMP 97% 3%

Vessels with an AMP 98% 2%

All vessels 97% 3%

All vessels
Vessels without an AMP 85% 15%

Vessels with an AMP 97% 3%

All vessels 95% 5%

Yes No

AMP: Active Management Policy

The conclusion could be that professional management of crews assists the

commitment of those crews and that this professionalism is to be found at least
as often among management companies as among shipowners who directly
operate their ships. There is certainly no evidence that indirect management
makes for crews with poor attitudes.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR SHIP’S CONDITION

The Ship Inspectors investigated the question of responsibility for the condition
of the ship. The point at issue here is whether the operator, be he owner or
manager, has established a sound management system in order to ensure the
proper maintenance of his ship or whether its condition is attributable only to
the efforts of an individual, either the Master himself or a Superintendent. The
method adopted is to record the perception of the Inspector as to where the
responsibility for the condition of each individual ship lies. It is perhaps not
surprising that, in modern times, the efforts of individuals are perceived by
experts as having much less impact in practice than impersonal management
controls or systems. Modern management, in ships as in other undertakings,
generally proceeds by the use of effective systems in preference to relying on
brilliant individuals. In 70% of all ships, the condition was seen as attributable
to management controls, with a slightly lower proportion of the larger group of
owner-operated ships (68%) than manager-operated (77%). These figures rose
in ships with Active Management Policies – to 74%, 71% and 83% respectively.

7
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 8

Table 7. Condition of ship attributed to Master, Superintendent

or Operator

Vessels without an AMP

Owner operated 37% 8% 55%

Manager operated 47% 53%

All vessels 40% 6% 54%

Vessels with an AMP

Owner operated 21% 8% 71%

Manager operated 10% 7% 83%

All vessels 18% 8% 74%

All vessels
Owner operated 24% 8% 68%

Manager operated 17% 6% 77%

All vessels 22% 8% 70%

Master Superintendent Operator

AMP: Active Management Policy

Where an individual was seen as responsible for the ship’s condition, that
individual was about three times more likely to be the Master than the Fleet
Superintendent (22% of all ships, 24% of owner-operated vessels, 17% of
manager-operated as against 8%, 8% and 6% for the Fleet Superintendent).
Where there was an Active Management Policy fewer ships were perceived to be
the responsibility of individuals, but again, more were seen to be the Master’s
responsibility than the Fleet Superintendent’s (18% for all ships, 21% for owner-
operated ships and 10% for manager-run vessels, as against 8%, 8% and
7% respectively).
The Superintendent’s role is therefore generally seen as less significant and in
all cases the management role is seen as considerably more important on a ship
with an Active Management Policy than on one without. Furthermore, the
management role is perceived to be of even greater significance when comparing
owner operated ships with manager operated ships when there is an Active
Management Policy in place.
The fair conclusion is that individual efforts and attitudes are less significant
in all ships but particularly so where there is an Active Management Policy. The
operation of ships in the 1990s is determined more by good systems than by
good people, whether afloat or ashore.

MANNING CREW SCALES AND SOURCES OF CREW SUPPLY

The decline of the maritime industry in some traditional areas, coupled with the
associated decline in the numbers of seafarers from these countries and the

8
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 9

continuing need for shipowners to control crew costs, are said to lead to ships
that are undermanned, or manned by inadequately qualified officers.
“Manpower in Crisis”, an ISF/BIMCO joint study, concludes that the industry
faces the risk of a serious shortfall in officers and ratings by the turn of the
century. Quality is also seen as a problem. An internal Club report on the
Philippine Merchant Marine underlined this problem, finding that “the system
could not supply the qualified and quality personnel” and that “demand,
especially for officers, is high and quality is regularly overlooked in the need to
fulfil owners requirements”.
The issues of the experience of officers will be considered later. In this section
we shall examine the question of compliance with manning scales. The majority
of the ships visited under the Ship Visit Programme were fully manned. Well
over 90% of ships with a management policy were found to be manned in
compliance with the governing scales – that is to say, the manning scales laid
down by the flag administration. No detailed information is available on
exemption from any requirements. Flag states generally allow for the formal
relief of their ships from particular manning requirements in special
circumstances. A vessel with a proper exemption certificate in respect of, say, a
Second Engineer, will count as fully-manned when it sails without a Second
Engineer. It is widely understood that many flag states will permit exemption in
circumstances where officers of a particular type or grade are hard to come by:
there is, however, no published evidence that such practices lead to dangerous
abuses of the system.

Table 8. Compliance with manning scale

Vessels without an AMP

Owner operated 78% 22%

Manager operated 93% 7%

All vessels 83% 17%

Vessels with an AMP

Owner operated 94% 6%

Manager operated 93% 7%

All vessels 94% 6%

All vessels
Owner operated 91% 9%

Manager operated 93% 7%

All vessels 92% 8%

Yes No

AMP: Active Management Policy

9
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 10

Even where compliance with manning scales exists at the high level that it does,
it can be seen from the table above that the existence of an Active
Management Policy significantly improves the rate of compliance on an owner
operated ship. Management-operated vessels score at a high level regardless
of the existence of such a policy. The Ship Visit Programme does not provide
information as to the source of the Certificates of Competency held by the
officers and ratings of the ships visited. There has been, of course, a wide
variation in the training and possibly the standards generally applied in
different countries. The international convention governing the matter, the
Convention on Standards of Training and Certification of Watchkeepers 1978
(STCW) has been revised in 1995. The contents of these recent developments
are contained in Appendix D of this report.
Since the introduction of the STCW convention in 1978, doubts have from
time to time been expressed concerning the standards applied by some of the
signatory administrations. It is the aim of the revised convention to improve the
standards of compliance by all flag states.
The popular view of manning agencies tends to be negative but they are an
important source of supply of officers and ratings today. The majority of
seafarers registered to manning agents are from third world countries.
Undoubtedly, some manning agencies have on their books numbers of ill-
qualified and poor quality seafarers and possibly many of those seafarers are
not readily employable on deep-sea shipping. Nonetheless, many manning
agencies also handle high-quality, well-qualified seafarers and they are an
established feature of the maritime scene with the possibility of becoming
associated members of the ISMA. Where evidence of quality improvements
exists, including manning, some Hull and Machinery underwriters are starting
to give discounts on premiums. It is hard to envisage effective management of
shipping in the 1990s which does not, at some time and to some extent, make
use of the services of manning agencies. As the tables opposite show, entered
ships visited demonstrate substantial reliance on crewing agencies with some
30% of ships finding their officers from manning agencies and 46% their ratings.
There are clear differences in practice between owner-operated and
manager-operated vessels. The former show a significantly lower reliance upon
agencies whereas ships managed by management companies take half their
officers from manning agencies and more than two thirds of their ratings. The
picture is affected by the existence of Active Management Policies, but not to
such an extent that conclusions can be drawn. Given the very high level of
compliance with flag-state manning scales, it cannot be the case that shipowners
and operators are using manning agencies to avoid their obligations as to full
manning. Nor, as we have seen, is there any evidence that managed ships are
of significantly poorer quality than directly operated ships. It would seem to
follow that the use of manning agencies does not of itself predict sub-standard
shipping. Over 90% of ships inspected are manned at levels required or
authorised by flag states and the majority of operators employ crew – officers
and ratings – directly.

10
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 11

Table 9. Employment of officers

Vessels with an AMP

Owner operated 78% 22%

Manager operated 52% 48%

All vessels 71% 29%

Vessels without an AMP

Owner operated 78% 22%

Manager operated 43% 57%

All vessels 68% 32%

All vessels

Owner operated 78% 22%

Manager operated 51% 49%

All vessels 70% 30%

Operator employed Agency employed

Table 10. Employment of crew

Vessels with an AMP

Owner operated 61% 39%

Manager operated 29% 71%

All vessels 52% 48%

Vessels without an AMP

Owner operated 64% 36%

Manager operated 43% 57%

All vessels 58% 42%

All vessels
Owner operated 62% 38%

Manager operated 32% 68%

All vessels 54% 46%

Operator employed Agency employed

AMP: Active Management Policy

11
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 12

Service and experience

Are ships’ crews today less experienced or less committed than their
predecessors and have skill shortages and changes in attitude destroyed the
professionalism that once typified the maritime industry? The Ship Inspectors
have gathered much information which bears upon these questions from which
some relevant conclusions can be drawn.

LENGTH OF SERVICE WITH ONE EMPLOYER

It is perhaps unsurprising to discover that the lengths of service of officers on
owner-operated vessels tends to be greater than for officers on manager-
operated vessels. Ship management companies may perhaps be thought to
have less reason to seek to establish a pool of committed officers than
shipowners. This difference might be considered also to reflect a difference in
attitudes between owners and managers to training as well as to personnel
management – the former accepting a responsibility for developing the general
body of trained seafarers for the industry, the latter, as service providers,
perhaps not perceiving that as one of their roles.

Table 11. Length of service with current employer

%
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years over 15 years

Owner Manager

The relatively high number of officers on owner-operated ships who have served
over fifteen years with the same operator must have spent much of their adult
working life with the same employer, and that working life must have included
periods devoted to training for qualifications and promotion. In contrast, unless
the 71% of officers serving under five years with a ship-manager are all junior
officers, which is unlikely, then it seems that manager-operators prefer to hire
fully qualified personnel, whether directly or from agencies. This may mean that
owners are placing their confidence in the establishment and maintenance of a
pool of officers while managers must take the chance on the availability of

12
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 13

trained personnel on the employment market. Two conclusions may be drawn.

First, these two policies – if they indeed exist – appear to be in conflict, since
the ship managers rely upon the shipowners to bear the responsibility of
training officers. Second, it may become increasingly difficult to keep up a policy
of not training and maintaining a pool of officers, given the predicted shortage
of qualified seafarers by the turn of the next century. There is no evidence that
such practices lead to undermanning, but the situation will require continued
close attention. It should, in fairness, be recorded that there is clear evidence
that many leading ship managers have recognised this and are now developing
training programmes and building up a pool of permanent employee officers.

SEATIME AND CAREER PROGRESSION

What of the officers themselves? Again, it is a popular conception that ships’
officers are in general less experienced than they were some years ago and that,
more specifically, they reach the higher ranks more quickly, no longer having to
serve for quite so many years in junior ranks. The Ship Visit Programme provides
much relevant information. The most general point that may be raised refers to
the sea-time of the officers.

Table 12. Years of service at sea

0

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Master

Master
Chief officer

Chief officer
Second officer

Second officer

Radio officer
Radio
Chief Officer

Chief engineer
First Engineer Second Engineer

First engineer

Second engineer
Other

Other
1-5 years

6-10 years

1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years Over 15 years

This table shows the results of questioning officers, half of whom had sea-time
in excess of 15 years. It clearly cannot be said that the ships visited in the
programme had inexperienced officers. Almost exactly 90% of the 549 Masters
in the survey had more than 15 years experience, which is unsurprising. Chief

13
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 14

Officers and Second Officers showed a steady diminution in that category (55%
and 29% respectively). The position below deck was slightly different, with 82%
of Chief Engineers showing more than 15 years sea-time, and First and Second
Engineers showing 60% and 43% respectively. Such variations presumably
represent differences in market and in the career moves and expectations of
officers of each cloth. It may be that more Chief Engineers than Masters are
leaving the sea before normal retirement, with the converse pattern present
among the lower ranks.
The relatively low proportions of Second Officers and Second Engineers (19%
and 13% respectively) in the first category of sea-time (1 to 5 years) probably
reflects the reduction of the number of those coming into the industry. One
reason for this has been the decline in the number of cadet places in training
schools in traditional maritime countries. This is, of course, a matter for serious
long-term concern.

Table 13. Years of service in present rank

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80
0

Master

Chief officer

Second officer

Radio officer

Chief engineer

First engineer

Second engineer

Other

1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years Over 15 years

When considering Table 13, the figures for 1st and 2nd Engineering Officers are
similar: 83% of 2nd Engineers had less than 10 years experience at that rank
whereas the equivalent for 1st Engineers was 79%.

CERTIFICATES AND PROMOTION

Traditionally, especially in large shipping companies, an officer with a Master’s
Certificate might expect to serve for several years as a Chief Officer before
obtaining command. It is often asserted that such a system no longer applies.

14
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 15

Skill shortages have ensured that we have moved, it is sometimes said, from an
industry where officers were technically over-qualified to one where they are
barely qualified. The Ship Inspectors did not gather information directly on this
point (for example, by discovering how many officers held superior certificates)
but did produce some relevant information. The table below gives, for each rank,
the number of years since obtaining the individual’s current qualification. While
there may have been changes in the relationship between qualification and rank,
the traditional pattern has not entirely disappeared: 39% of Masters have held
their certificate for more than fifteen years, while only 28% have more than
fifteen years’ service in that rank.

Table 14. Years since obtaining current qualification

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Master

Chief officer

Second officer

Radio officer

Chief engineer

First engineer

Second engineer

Other

1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years Over 15 years

Similarly, 32% of Chief Engineers have held a Chief’s certificate for more than
fifteen years, with 27% holding the rank for more than that period. Other ranks
show similar differences. The figures are not of course precise, but they are not
consistent with immediate promotion on qualification.
There is no evidence of over-rapid promotion or of serious dilution of
qualifications or of experience.

15
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 16

CARGO EXPERIENCE
The safe carriage of cargo is the main purpose of commercial shipping. Failure
so to do can be both dangerous and expensive. The Club’s “Analysis of Major
Claims” 1993 showed that the cost of cargo claims by far exceeds the cost of
claims in any other category and that, even in the context of very large claims,
dominated as it is by major disasters, cargo claims accounted for 20%. The task
of safe carriage requires technical skill and relevant experience. The Ship Visit
Programme sought information as to the previous experience of the Master and
Chief Officer of the cargo carried when the ship was visited.

Table 15. Previous experience of present cargo

5% 6%
No No

95% Yes 94% Yes

Master Chief Officer

The great majority of Masters (95%) and Chief Officers (94%) did have relevant
experience of the cargo carried. The figures were effectively the same for owner-
operated and manager-operated vessels, with a very slight diminution of
experience for Chief Officers in manager-operated ships. Given the apparent
practice of Ship Management Companies of recruiting officers as required rather
than establishing an available “pool”, one might have expected a very much
larger difference in cargo experience than these figures show. There is a slight
but consistent improvement in cargo-experience when the vessel, however
managed, has an active management policy.

HANDOVER
Officers also need to develop experience of the ship for which they are
responsible. Again, this may not be as straightforward as it sounds. Some
operators achieve this by making a practice of sending their senior officers back
to the same ship for several tours of duty. Also, much relevant experience may
be acquired in different ships of the same or very similar type. On the other
hand, different ships, or ship types, may require very different periods of
familiarisation. The same is true of different ranks and functions aboard ship.
One indicator of the development of experience may be the handover period,
which is, in effect, a concentrated period in which knowledge is acquired. In hard
economic times, it may be tempting to regard handover periods as unproductive
time. Skill shortages, the greater use of Manning Agencies and Ship
Management Companies all may tend to a similar result.

16
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 17

Table 16. Officers’ handover periods

7 days or less
72%
8-14 days 1%

None
25%

Over 2 weeks 2%

Information on handover periods derived from the Ship Visit Programme is

given in the table above. The picture it presents is quite consistent. At every
level, about one quarter of the officers, above and below deck, have no
handover period at all and the great majority of the rest get a week or less. It
would seem that lengthy handover periods are not regarded as an important
way of developing experience with ships.

17
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 18

Training and endorsements

We have seen that the vast majority of ships visited in the Ship Visit Programme
were fully manned by a complement of properly certificated officers in
accordance with the requirements of the flag state. This includes circumstances
where the vessel is properly exempted from the requirement to carry particular
officers. The holding of a certificate of appropriate class is not, however, all that
is expected of an efficient ship’s officer. They will also attend specialist courses
to improve their skills and knowledge and, where appropriate, seek
endorsement of their certificates to increase their formal competence.

TRAINING
In the same way that regular maintenance is required for ships, it is also highly
desirable to provide the same for crews through the system of training and
endorsements, a system envisaged by STCW. The importance of training is
widely acknowledged, yet in difficult times it is often first to fall under the
economic knife. The relevance of training and endorsements to the quality of
shipping seems clear. Apart from its relevance to appropriate certification,
adequate training should increase competence and, indeed, confidence among
officers in their ability to run the ship and to handle emergencies. It may not be
too much to relate continued training to the reduction of human error, the main
reason for casualties. Finally, it may be that high levels of training can be taken
to indicate high levels of commitment. The next table indicates what courses
were attended.

Table 17. Training courses attended

Global Maritime Safety 5%

IMO Course 6%

Crude Oil Washing/Inert Gas 8%

SOLAS 9%

Tanker Safety Course 10%

Survival Craft 11%

Radio Telephony Course 14%

Automatic Radar Plotting 21%

First Aid 21%

Radar Observer Course 36%

Survival at Sea Course 57%

Firefighting Course 76%

% of 3535 officers questioned

who attended the courses

18
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 19

The Ship Inspectors discovered that virtually all officers attend training
courses. There is no discernible difference in this area between owner-
operated and manager-operated ships. It would appear that both types of
management encourage training courses equally. In the period under review
some 3535 officers attended courses and 57% of them had attended 3, 4 or
5 different courses. Only 18% had attended only one course. In all some 47
different training courses were attended.
By far the most popular courses are firefighting, survival at sea and radar
observer courses, all of them of high significance to casualties and disasters. But
the variety of courses attended is large. It is also possible that there was a
degree of under-reporting in this area.

ENDORSEMENTS
As is well known, the endorsement system, which is central to the approach of
the STCW, enables officers to obtain formal additional qualifications which
entitle the holder to undertake particular responsibilities. In the period under
review, the Ship Visit Programme found three types of endorsement among the
3576 officers encountered. The endorsements were: Dangerous Cargo
Chemical (DCC), Dangerous Cargo Gas (DCG) and Dangerous Cargo Tanker
(DCT). In all, 575 endorsements were found, held by 464 officers (13% of the
total). As might be expected, proportionately more endorsements were held by
masters – 74 out of 470 masters (16%). Most officers (78%) held only one
endorsement but 19 officers (4%) held three endorsements and 81(17%) held
two. The most popular was DCT, held by 349 (75%) of officers, followed by DCC
(120 officers or 26%) and finally DCG (106 officers or 23%). As the next table
shows, slightly more officers carried endorsed certificates in owner-operated
ships than in manager-operated ships. In line with other results, the existence
of an Active Management Policy was associated with a higher level of
endorsements.

Table 18. Officers holding endorsements

14% 10%

86% 90%

Owner operator Manager operator

Endorsed Not endorsed

19
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 20

Endorsements were also related to the nationality of the holder. This

information was considered alongside other information relating to nationality
and language. It was found that Greece provided the largest number of officers
with endorsed certificates, although Greek officers were the largest nationality
group in the group of 3576 officers and in proportionate terms showed just
below the average of 13% overall. South Korean officers with 26% had double
the average proportion with Japanese officers close behind at 22%.
Few general conclusions can be drawn. The need for endorsement of a
certificate must relate directly to the sort of work that is done, or expected to
be done, by the officer concerned. Some indication of the success or importance
of the endorsement system might be derived from comparing the holding of
endorsements with the type of post held by the holder. As yet the Ship Visit
Programme has not sought that information. But if the holding of endorsements
can be taken to indicate high levels of professionalism among officers, and
therefore better, more efficiently operated ships, the significance of an Active
Management Policy can be demonstrated.

20
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 21

Language and nationality

The majority of all crews are mixed and this is neither new nor surprising. In
some quarters in recent years, it has been suggested that a range of serious
risks can be attributed to mixed crews. While it cannot be denied that mixed
crews present problems not found among crews of a single nationality with a
common language, such assumptions may be proved to be too simple. The fact
that so many ships are crewed in this way itself argues against such
conclusions. From the Club’s Ship Inspection Report (1995), it is evident that
there is no direct relation between mixed nationality crews and ships attracting
adverse reports.
The Ship Inspectors obtained a great deal of information about the
nationality of crews. Not only were the crews as a whole examined, but the
officers and ratings were looked at separately. This gives greater precision to the
general idea of mixed nationality. A ship whose officers are all Greek and whose
ratings are all Filipino is properly described as having a mixed crew, but
presents a very different proposition to a vessel whose officers and ratings, as
groups, both come from two or more countries. The programme also identifies
dominant as well as single nationality within the groups. Again, this is helpful,
for example, if one officer is Italian but all the other officers are Greek, then such
a ship can sensibly be considered alongside one in which all the officers are
Greek. It is essentially a Greek-officered ship and it can and should be
distinguished from one where the mix of nationalities is such that no dominant
group can be identified. Finally, for the sake of clarity, nationalities have been
grouped in this report into geographical areas.
Mixed crews may present a variety of problems, but foremost among them is
language. It is not merely a matter of, as the oft-quoted remark has it, that in
time of crisis people “panic in their own language” – a comment regularly
justified by reference to the tragedy of the “Scandinavian Star”. Orders must be
clearly understood to be obeyed and units or groups aboard a ship have to be
able effectively to communicate in order to operate efficiently. As the Donaldson
Report recommended:

“...IMO is pressed to review the difficulties of inadequate communication

between crew members and to set new language standards for communication
between all officers and crew. Furthermore, it should ensure that crew members
are as sensitive to the safe operation of the vessel in port as they are at sea,
with particular attention being paid to proper loading and discharge procedures
and safe bunkering practice.”

Finally, the ship must be able to “communicate externally” in a language that

can be understood. The Ship Inspectors addressed all these issues by examining
the use of the declared “working language” among the crew and among officers
and ratings separately. In this context, the wide use of English as a medium of
external communication requires that skill in that language also be investigated.
This the Ship Inspectors have done.

21
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 22

There is a view that multi-racial crews should be replaced by single or bi-national

crews, and that the officers should be all or dominantly of one nation and the
ratings likewise. The data gathered on crew complements by the Ship Inspectors
would seem to indicate broad agreement with this proposition. There remain
however distinct differences between the nationalities of officers and ratings as
groups, emphasising the importance of the interface between officers and crew
in the solution of communication problems aboard ships. In practice, such
problems are well known and readily addressed aboard ships. Some solutions
are inherently risky, in particular those which identify one member, or a very few
members, of either group as the “communicators”, because of their particular
language skills. This practice cannot be ideal in times of crisis.

NATIONALITY OF CREW
The table below shows the result of the investigation into crew nationality
carried out under the Ship Visit Programme during the period under review. The
majority (56%) of the 555 vessels visited had mixed crews. The only substantial
group of single nationality vessels (126 ships representing 23% of the total) was
from Eastern Europe. Occasionally, the degree of mixture caused difficulties for
the Inspector in the programme. Where the crew was mixed, the procedure was
to then identify the dominant nationality. In two cases this proved impossible for
the ship as a whole.

Table 19. Nationality of full crew

Rest of Asia 1%

Far East 10%

Mixed 55%
Australia 1%

Eastern Europe 23%

S&C America 2% South East Asia 1%

North America 1% European Community 6%

NATIONALITIES OF OFFICERS BY REGION

A significant percentage of ships had officers of a single nationality (61% of the
whole). On the remaining ships visited (39%), the officers as a group were of
mixed nationality. Most ships with an officer group of mixed nationality showed
a clear dominant nationality. To present the point positively, 99% of ships were
manned by officers with a single or a dominant nationality.

22
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 23

Table 20. Officer nationality by region (single nationality)

Mixed 39%

Rest of Asia 1% North America 1%

South East Asia 1% S&C America 1%

Far East 12%

European Community 19%

Africa 1%

Australia 1%
Eastern Europe 24%

Table 21. Officer nationality by region (dominant nationality)

Rest of Asia 6% Mixed 1%

Africa 1%

South East Asia 12% European Community 32%

Australia 1%

Far East 14%

North America 1% S&C America 2%

Eastern Europe 30%

The pie-charts indicate the distribution of single or dominant nationalities of

officers by geographical region. Perhaps the most significant point is that by far
the most important regions are the European Union and Eastern Europe. Those
two categories together account for 137 of the single nationality ships and 211
of the “dominant” nationality groupings for officers, a total of 348 ships or some
62% of the whole group. No other geographical region approaches these figures.

NATIONALITIES OF RATINGS BY REGION

When the nationality of ratings is examined, the picture is equally clear. As with
officers, most of the 555 ships visited had a single nationality, 63% having a
single nationality for their ratings. Again, the great majority of mixed
nationality groups had a clear dominant nationality, four vessels only
presenting the inspector with an insoluble problem when attempting to identify
dominant nationality.

23
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 24

Table 22. Rating nationality by region (single nationality)

Mixed 38%

Australia 1% Africa 1%
Rest of Asia 4% European Community 5%

South East Asia 13%

Eastern Europe 25%

Far East 10%

S&C America 2% North America 1%

Table 23. Rating nationality by region (dominant nationality)

Mixed 1% Africa 3%
Rest of Asia 7% S&C America 3%
North America 1%

European Community 12%

Australia 1%

South East Asia 32%

Eastern Europe 28%

Far East 12%

The pie-charts for ratings show distribution of single and dominant nationalities
by region. Europe is again a significant region but in no sense as important as
it is with officers. In Table 23, the two European categories (EU and Eastern
Europe) together account for 225 ships or 40% overall. Asia is extremely
significant: within this broad area, the region “South East Asia” is by far the
most important, providing ratings for 13% of ships with ratings of single
nationality and for 32% of those with “dominant” nationality. If South East Asia
is taken with the Far East and the Rest of Asia, the overall proportion rises to
about half. It is also clear that, where the ratings are of mixed nationality, Asian
ratings dominate.
The typical ship would seem to have European officers and South East Asian
ratings. Each group displays distinct cohesion in nationality, for the most part
being composed wholly of one nationality.

24
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 25

NATIONALITIES BY COUNTRY
Although it was impractical to analyse particular nationalities – which is why the
information was presented by region – the Ship Visit Programme did collect
relevant information on particular nationalities.

Table 24. The top five dominant nationalities

6% 5% 5% 5%
6%
10%
48% 10% 48%
10% other other

21% 26%

Officers Ratings

China CIS Greece South Korea Philippines

The information is not complete, but it supports the analysis derived from the
distribution of nationality by region. The Philippines is a major supplier of
ratings, Greece a major supplier of officers. The CIS is a significant supplier of
both. The rest fits the pattern of “European officers, Asian ratings” noted above.
It is clearly the case that economics drives ship-operators to seek crews who
can be engaged at competitive rates. South East Asia has a clear advantage in
that market, particularly for ratings. It would also seem clear that operators
prefer to find their officers from amongst traditional maritime nations where
training and qualifications may be better known to those who make the
decisions within the companies.

LANGUAGE
Almost certainly, mixed nationalities mean mixed languages resulting in
potential difficulties in communication. One solution to this problem is the
adoption of a “working language” to be used by everyone on board when on
duty. This is a solution so widespread as to be practically universal. All the ships
visited were asked to declare the working language. The matter was then further
investigated in order to see how far the ship’s language was embedded in the
operation of the ship. Since, as we have seen, the common nationality pattern
on board ships is that officers are universally or dominantly of one nationality
and the ratings universally or dominantly of another, it was first necessary to
discover whether both or either group did indeed use the adopted language.
The Inspectors asked both officers and ratings to state whether the ship’s
working language was their own mother tongue.

25
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 26

Table 25. Ship’s working languages

Declared Working Language Mother Tongue

Percentage of those ships where the Crew’s Mother Tongue
Number of vessels corresponded with the ship’s Declared Working Language
Language which had this
as their Declared Total Officers Ratings None of
Working Language Crew only only the Crew

Chinese 26 92% 0% 0% 8%

Croatian 19 100% 0% 0% 0%

English 254 6% 4% 0% 90%

French 16 88% 6% 0% 6%

Greek 33 67% 33% 0% 0%

Korean 33 94% 0% 0% 6%

Russian 73 100% 0% 0% 0%

Others 101 93% 3% 1% 3%

The table above shows the results of part of this survey. Most of the declared
languages were in fact effectively used by the whole crew. It can safely be
assumed in those cases that the chosen languages were at least potentially
effective for the purposes required. In very few cases, apart from English, was it
true that neither the officers nor the ratings used the ship’s language as their
mother tongue. The ship’s language was therefore the mother tongue of at least
one of the two categories of the crew.
The data collected shows that nearly half (254) of ships declared English to
be the ship’s working language. This figure may be usefully compared with the
data on nationalities. While many ships appear to use English as their working
language, only 3% of full crews are dominated by largely English speaking
nationalities: UK, Ireland, Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
The place of English appears more complicated if further reference is made to
the table above. 90% of the crews declaring English as their working language
do not use English as their mother tongue. This is to be expected in so far as
English is the accepted international language. However, as has been so
graphically illustrated by the last chart, only a very small percentage of crew are
from English speaking countries. As a result, the majority of inter-ship
communications are conducted in a language foreign to each party. In such
cases, the ability of the officers in particular to speak English fluently is
obviously important and, in such cases, the working language must necessarily
have a limited function.
The use of English for inter-ship communication, as well as for communication
with shore-based personnel such as pilots, ship’s agents and others, obtains
greater significance than the use of any other language. The Ship Inspectors
therefore examined fluency in English among officers. The Inspectors applied a
simple assessment, derived from dealing with the officers concerned, rating
them on a scale from one to ten. To approach the problem in any other way
(eg by demanding formal proof of English speaking ability or by testing) would
not have been possible.

26
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 27

Table 26. Officers’ English speaking ability

Master 3% 16% 67% 14%

Chief officer 5% 19% 66% 10%

Second officer 6% 23% 64% 7%

Radio officer 9% 20% 63% 8%

Chief engineer 10% 26% 55% 9%

First engineer 15% 25% 57% 3%

Second engineer 16% 26% 51% 7%

Poor Fair Good Fluent

The results exclude officers from English speaking countries who unsurprisingly
scored well.
A number of points may be made. Radio officers and deck officers are in the
main, good English speakers, with usually about three quarters scoring from 7
to 10 (good or fluent).
Ability increases with rank. Deck officers may have more contact with the
outside world than do engineer officers, which may explain the slightly lower
scores there. Few officers rated as poor speakers of English.
The overall pattern is relatively clear:

■ There is, in general, a substantial ability in English among officers

whose first language is not English.

■ It would appear that English is the ship’s first language of choice.

■ A large number of ships have multi-national crews from non-English

speaking countries where English is declared as the ship’s language,
but is probably used only in case of necessity.

27
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 28

Appendix A

Manning and Management

Numbers/Age Total Average age Nationality* Dominant nationality
Officer
Ratings
Full crew
Riding crew
*Enter nationality (e.g. British) or mixed.

Compliance manning scale? Y/N/Dispensation

Master Age LOSS
Chief engineer Age LOSS

Officer manning agency (name)

Crew manning agency (name)

Language

Language of ship Officers’ mother tongue Ratings’ mother tongue

(same or other) (same or other)

Owner/Manager-operated?
Management policy? Y/N
Policy in place? Y/N
Ship condition reflects (answer in one square)
Management
Master
Superintendent

Pilotage (Yes/Strict/Moderate/Lax/Nil)
Pre–pilotage conference?
Master’s supervision of pilot
Officer’s supervision of pilot
Standards of vigilance under pilot

P&I Involvement Current P&I literature on board? Y/N

Master C/Off.
Date of last contact with P&I correspondent?
Understand impact of P&I costs/claims on operating cost of ship? (Y/N)
Officer believes he has Owner’s interests at heart?
(e.g. in the case of Agency employed officers) (Y/N)
Present cargo
Previous experience of this cargo? (Y/N)

28
 Appendix B

Certificate Length of L.O.S.S. L.O.S.S. Prior Hand Able

Rank Endorsements Training courses sea service with this in present service over Nationality to speak
Type Qualifying attended
date (L.O.S.S.) owner rank in V/L period English
Master
C/O
2/O
3/O

29
R/O
C/E
Page 29

Officer Qualifications

I/E
29/11/99 3:37 pm

2/E
3/E
M.V.
Ship Manning Document

4/E
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 30

Appendix C

ISM
INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CODE FOR THE SAFE OPERATION
OF SHIPS AND FOR POLLUTION PREVENTION
THE ISM CODE

The ISM Code, IMO Assembly Resolution A.741 (18), was adopted on 4th
November 1993 and is due to come into force worldwide under a new Chapter
IX of SOLAS 74 in June 1998. It would appear to have radical ramifications for
those involved in the management of ships; being the first IMO Code designed
to tackle the issue of setting out international standards for safety from the
management, as opposed to the technical point of view. The code is expressed
in specific, but broad, terms, given the reality that “... no two shipping
companies or shipowners are the same, and that ships operate under a wide
range of different conditions,” and that “Clearly, different levels of management,
whether shore-based or at sea, will require varying levels of knowledge and
awareness of the items outlined.”
The stress on safety from the ship management aspect is interwoven
throughout the ISM Code. The major effects for those connected with the ship
management responsibilities of manning are found in Section 6:

6.2 The Company should ensure that each ship is manned with qualified,
certificated and medically fit seafarers in accordance with national and
international requirements.

6.3 The Company should establish procedures to ensure that new personnel
and personnel transferred to new assignments related to safety and protection
of the environment are given proper familiarisation with their duties.
Instructions which are essential to be provided prior to sailing should be
identified, documented and given.

6.4 The company should ensure that all personnel involved in the Company’s
SMS have an adequate understanding of relevant rules, regulations, codes and
guidelines.

6.5 The Company should establish and maintain procedures for identifying any
training which may be required in support of the SMS [safety management
system – to be developed and implemented by each company and to cover
matters as instructions for safe operation of the vessel; procedures for reporting
accidents; response procedures to emergency situations] and ensure that such
training is provided for all personnel concerned.

6.6 The Company should establish procedures by which the ship’s personnel
receive relevant information on the SMS in a working language or languages
understood by them.

30
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 31

Appendix C

6.7 The Company should ensure that the ship’s personnel are able to
communicate effectively in the execution of their duties related to the SMS.

In essence, these provisions should, in practice, have great effects for those
involved in ship management, not forgetting those who maintain a livelihood by
being employed on vessels. It should be noted that continuous reference is
made to the ‘Company’ and its responsibilities under the Code. This epithet is
used to cover ‘... the Owner of the ship or any other organisation or person such
as the Manager, or the Bareboat Charterer, who has assumed the responsibility
for operation of the ship from the Shipowner and who on assuming such
responsibility has agreed to take over all the duties and responsibility imposed
by the Code.’
Problems may arise when technical and crew management is split between
different companies since it is unclear which is considered the ‘Company’
under the Code. Since a shipowner who has delegated responsibility for his
ship to a ship manager is not precluded from having his own safety systems,
this, as well as the ambiguity within the Code, may implicitly require more
communication and cooperation between different groups with interests in the
operation of the vessel.

31
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 32

Appendix D

STCW
1994 AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON
STANDARDS OF TRAINING, CERTIFICATION AND WATCHKEEPING
FOR SEAFARERS, 1978

These amendments are due to come into force on 1st February 1997 and relate
to one particular area of the STCW Convention. Provision is, for example, made
for the replacement of the existing Chapter V in the Convention with a new
chapter. An initial glance at them shows that a more simplified view towards
regulation has been adopted – oil tankers, chemical tankers and liquified gas
tankers were previously separately provided for but are now taken together
(Chapter V Regulation V/1). Probing deeper, it can be seen that other changes
appear to be further ranging.
The first noticeable difference comes with the heading of Chapter V. This
states that it deals with “Special Training Requirements for Personnel on
Tankers”. The words ‘training’ and ‘personnel on’ are new additions. It is unlikely
that these will, in practice, make much difference to STCW when the
amendments come into force – they seem simply to reemphasise the purpose of
these requirements and the link between them and seafarers.
The second major difference is the deletion of the words “...tankers and who
have not served on board ... a tanker as part of the regular complement, before
carrying out such duties ...” from Regulation V/1, paragraph 1, the equivalent of
Regulations V/1, 2 and 3 paragraphs 1 in the main body of the STCW
Convention. This is quite a major step. The STCW Convention proper, as it read,
seemed to provide a loophole for unscrupulous shipowners, charterers and
managers. Only those officers and ratings who had not served on board a tanker
of a particular genre before would be required to “complete an appropriate
shore-based fire-fighting course” before they assumed their duties in relation to
cargo and cargo equipment. With the removal of this proviso, such a loophole is
closed. The practical consequence of this would appear to be that whenever a
new officer or rating joins a vessel, whether a novice or not and in spite of this
vessel being a type upon which he/she has served before or not, he/she is
required to complete an appropriate, shore-based fire-fighting course – in other
words, undertake a continuing education course.
Both the Convention and the new amendments insist on two steps being
satisfied before duties in relation to cargo and cargo equipment can be
undertaken. The first has just been described. The second takes the form of an
‘either or’ and its provisions differ radically in the 1994 amendments.
In Regulations V/1, 2 and 3 paragraphs 1, the Convention talks of serving:

(a) an appropriate period of supervised shipboard service in order to acquire

adequate knowledge of safe operational practices; or

(b) an approved ... tanker familiarisation course which includes basic safety and

32
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 33

Appendix D

pollution prevention precautions and procedures, layout of different types of ...

tankers, types of cargo, their hazards and their handling equipment, general
operational sequence and ... tanker terminology.

The amendments, in regulation V/1 provide for

.1 at least three months of supervised sea service on tankers in order to

acquire adequate knowledge of safe operational practices; or

.2 an approved tanker familiarisation course covering at least the syllabus

given at Appendix 1 to this regulation.

The Administration may, however, accept a period of supervised sea service

shorter than three months as prescribed in sub-paragraph .1 for officers and
ratings of a tanker, if all the following conditions are met:

.3 the period so accepted is not less than one month;

.4 the tanker is less than 1,600 gross tonnage;

.5 the duration of the voyage on which the tanker is engaged does not exceed
72 hours; and

.6 the administration is satisfied that the operational characteristics of the

ship, including the number of voyages and number of loading and discharging
operations in which the ship is engaged during such period, are such that the
same level of knowledge may be acquired in that period.

With a time such as ‘an appropriate period’ being very much liable to subjective
interpretation, the requirement of three months supervised sea (the Convention
talks of shipboard) service might, in practice, make dramatic differences in
certain quarters. However, although the provisos contained in sub-paragraphs 3
through to 6 detract from the initial force of this somewhat and seem to move
the requirement back towards the ‘appropriate period’ position contained in the
main body of the Convention at present, it is to be noted that these can only be
allowable if prescribed by ‘the Administration’ – in other words, a state body.
Therefore, the stance taken in the 1994 amendments is definitely more
stringent for shipowners, charterers and ship managers.
With regards to familiarisation courses, the new amendments (in Appendix 1)
set out the matters which they believe should be covered. In essence, these
elaborate upon the provisions of Regulations V/1, 2 and 3, paragraphs 1 (b) in
the Convention by defining which matters the rather vague words set down
there actually cover. In practice, this subtle difference could have radical
ramifications.

33
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 34

Appendix D

The amended version of Chapter V continues:

2. Masters, chief engineer officers, chief mates, second engineer officers and, if
other than the foregoing, any person with the immediate responsibility for
loading, discharging and care in transit or handling cargo, in addition to the
provisions of paragraph 1.1 and 1.2, shall have:

.1 experience appropriate to their duties on tankers and relevant to the type of

tanker on which they serve, i.e. oil tanker, chemical tanker or liquified gas
tanker; and

.2 completed an approved specialised training programme appropriate to their

duties on the type of tanker on which they serve, i.e. oil tanker, chemical tanker
or liquified gas tanker. The specialised training programme shall cover at least
the syllabus given at Appendix 2 or 3 or 4 to this regulation, as appropriate.

At present, the STCW Convention speaks of having “relevant experience

appropriate to their duties on ... tankers” and “completed a specialised training
programme appropriate to their duties, including oil tanker safety, fire safety
measures and systems, pollution prevention and control, operational practice
and obligations under applicable laws and regulations.” In practice, the change
of wording in these two sub-paragraphs will probably make little difference,
particularly with regards to sub-paragraph 1. Sub-paragraph 2 is now designed
to make more concrete the responsibilities which must be adhered to. It is
interesting to note that with regards to Appendices 2 through to 4 – which spell
out what the specialised training programme for each type of tanker should
include – Appendix 4, which applies to liquified gas tankers, has more elaborate
provisions than its counterparts.
The final major change introduced by the new amendments to the STCW
Convention is Chapter V/1, paragraph 4. Again, this will have great practical
significance, both for States-Parties and shipowners, charterers and ship
managers. By ensuring that officers and ratings qualified in the sense of Chapter
V must have documentary evidence as a means of verifying this fact, the 1994
STCW amendments are reemphasising their commitment to establishing higher
safety standards in this aspect of shipping affairs.
At the 64th Session of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee (5-9 December
1994), it was agreed in principle that a new code for safe navigation and
watchkeeping should be drawn up for use in conjunction with Chapter V
of SOLAS 1974 and the STCW Convention itself by 1997. It is divided into
two parts: one dealing with mandatory standards, the other giving
recommended guidance.
New draft amendments have also been circulated to governments and were
considered by the Sub-Committee on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping
at its 27th Session (6-10 February 1995). These amendments were considered
at a conference at IMO Headquarters in July 1995. At the same time, another

34
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 35

Appendix D

conference considered the draft text for an International Convention on

Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Personnel.
The draft regulations concentrate on the issue of verifying compliance with
STCW standards but only some are of real significance for those involved directly
with vessels. Draft Regulation I/4 states that control exercised by a duly
authorised officer, such as an inspector, should be limited to the verification of
crew numbers and certificates and to the assessment of the ability of the
seafarers to maintain watchkeeping standards as required by the Convention if
there are clear grounds for believing that such standards are not being
maintained. For example, these include, inter alia, when a ship has been involved
in an accident or unsafe navigation or there is the “inability to provide rested
persons for the first watch at the commencement of the voyage and subsequent
relieving watches”. The issue of crew numbers is a new addition to the STCW
Convention in this respect and, therefore, could force shipowners, charterers and
ship managers to make fundamental changes to their working practices.
Other new draft amendments to Chapter I deal with the responsibilities of
companies and the prevention of fatigue.

35
Ship Manning Document 29/11/99 3:37 pm Page 36