safety campaign - impahq.org · safety campaign 20183 results this year suggest that there is a...
TRANSCRIPT
S A F E T Y C A M P A I G N
2 0 1 8
CONTENTS
2 Beliefs
3 Foreword
4 Participants
5 Vessel Type
6 Compliance by
Means of Transfer
7-9 Non-Compliance
by Type of Defect
10 Required Boarding
Arrangements for
Pilot
11 IMPA Officers
and Secretariat
Please Note:
All the cover photographs
were taken during the
two-week survey period.
O U R M I S S I O N
22 I N T E R N A T I O N A L M A R I T I M E P I L O T S ’ A S S O C I A T I O NI N T E R N A T I O N A L M A R I T I M E P I L O T S ’ A S S O C I A T I O N
IMPA represents the international community of pilots. We use the resources of our membership to promote effective safety outcomes in pilotage as an essential public service.
The public interest is best served by a fully regulated and cohesive pilotage service free of commercial pressure.
There is no substitute for the presence of a qualified pilot on the bridge.
IMO is the prime authority in matters concerning safety of international shipping.
All states should adopt a responsible approach based on proven safety strategies in establishing their own regulations, standards and procedures with respect to pilotage.
Existing and emerging information technologies are capable of enhancing on-board decision making by the maritime pilot.
Right and below: Compounding the danger to Pilots of non-SOLAS compliant Boarding Arrangements, is the efforts of some Administrations to force Pilots to use Elderly or Unsuitable vessels (like Tugs) to executive transfers. These two examples are both from Europe.
B E L I E F S1
2
3
4
5
P I L O T L A D D E R S A F E T Y S U R V E Y 2 0 1 8
33S A F E T Y C A M P A I G N 2 0 1 8S A F E T Y C A M P A I G N 2 0 1 8
Results this year suggest that there is a small improvement in the level of compliance, yet still one in eight pilot transfer arrangements fail to comply.
It is most welcoming that since last year many maritime stakeholders have referred to the IMPA pilot ladder safety report. Yet still so many stakeholders act as if SOLAS V/23 is optional or aspirational, rather than an internationally accepted standard. All maritime stakeholders need to stand up and take what action they can to improve pilot transfer safety.
Class Societies should ensure that when signing off boarding arrangements for vessels, that their primary consideration is safety rather than commercial expedience. Indeed, some societies have realised of late that their own surveyors use Pilot Ladders and suffer like Pilots from inadequate arrangements. Port and flag state inspectors should ensure their inspectors are familiar with SOLAS V/23 requirements and prepared to enforce their requirements. Shipowners’ superintendents should ensure that the equipment purchased actually meets requirements rather
than simply rely on often fake certificates. Sadly, it is amongst some of the most respected of ship operators that we have found the most obvious non-compliant arrangements.
It should not be assumed however that all accidents are a result of non-compliance with SOLAS V/23. This is not the case, there are many other contributory factors. This last year there have been deaths in Portugal and Finland due to pilot boat issues which are not covered by SOLAS
regulations. It is a sad fact that many major maritime administrations pay scant regard to the suitability of the craft that they employ to provide pilot transfer services. Once again cost rather than safety is the driver of some administrations providing unsuitable craft. Adoption of suitable codes for craft engaged in pilot transfers would help ensure they are fit for purpose.
The most perilous part of a vessel’s voyage is in pilotage waters, which is why pilots are engaged. For pilots the most perilous part of their day is embarking and disembarking the vessel, which is why SOLAS V/23 is required. Your compliance, consideration and action are essential.
F O R E W O R D
PA R T I C I PA N T S
The chart below shows 4,339 returns from participating IMPA members which have been grouped into 6 geographical areas. The total non-compliance is shown as a percentage of total returns from each region and and as a total.
Right: Picture by Rodge Musselwhite
44
TOTAL
NON
NON COUNTRY
RETURNS COMPLIANT
COMPLIANT COMPLIANT
AS %
Africa 100 81 19 19.00
Asia / Oceania 810 687 123 15.19
Europe 1679 1442 237 14.12
Middle East 79 71 8 10.13
North America 371 297 74 19.95
South America 1300 1191 109 8.38
TOTAL 4339 3769 570 13.14
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M A R I T I M E P I L O T S ’ A S S O C I A T I O NI N T E R N A T I O N A L M A R I T I M E P I L O T S ’ A S S O C I A T I O N
Africa
Asia / Oceania
Europe
Middle East
North America
South America
81
687
1442
71
297
1191
19
123
237
8
74
109
Compliant Non-Compliant
COMPLIANCE BY REGION
V E S S E L T Y P E
Right: Picture by Rodge Musselwhite
The following chart shows a break down of all returns by vessel type. Both the number and the percentage of non-compliant vessels by type are shown.
55
TOTAL NON
NON VESSEL TYPE NUMBER OF COMPLIANT
COMPLIANT COMPLIANT
VESSELS AS %
General Cargo 621 519 102 16.43
Oil Tanker 712 628 84 11.8
Ro/Ro 162 148 14 8.64
Passenger 233 208 25 10.73
Container 946 830 116 12.26
Gas Tanker 165 154 11 6.67
Reefer 22 18 4 18.18
Fishing 13 8 5 38.46
Bulkcarrier 603 503 100 16.58
Chemical Tanker 308 267 41 13.31
Car Carrier 106 95 11 10.38
Rig Supply Vessel 115 97 18 15.65
Other (E.G. Navy) 400 352 48 12
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
General Cargo
Oil Tanker
Ro/Ro
Passenger
Container
Gas Tanker
Reefer
Fishing
Bulkcarrier
Chemical Tanker
Car Carrier
Rig Supply Vessel
Other (E.G. Navy)
COMPLIANCE BY VESSEL TYPE
S A F E T Y C A M P A I G N 2 0 1 8S A F E T Y C A M P A I G N 2 0 1 8
Compliant Non-Compliant
C O M P L I A N C E B YM E A N S O F T R A N S F E R
The following chart shows a breakdown of all returns by means of transfer. Both the number and the percentage of non-compliant means of transfer by type are shown.
66
MEANS OF
TOTAL
NON
NON
TRANSFER
NUMBER COMPLIANT
COMPLIANT COMPLIANT
AS %
Pilot Ladder 2729 2397 332 12.17
Combination 956 805 151 15.79
Side Door and 455 396 59 12.97Pilot Ladder
Gangway 82 76 6 7.32
Helicopter 45 42 3 6.67
Deck to Deck 164 136 28 17.07
TOTAL 4431 3852 579
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Pilot Ladder
Combination
Side Door and
Pilot Ladder
Gangway
Helicopter
Deck to Deck
COMPLIANCE BY MEANS OF TRANSFER
Compliant Non-Compliant
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M A R I T I M E P I L O T S ’ A S S O C I A T I O NI N T E R N A T I O N A L M A R I T I M E P I L O T S ’ A S S O C I A T I O N
N O N - C O M P L I A N C EB Y T Y P E O F D E F E C T
The first pie chart shows the percentage of the defects that were reported to the Authority. The second pie chart shows non-compliance by type of defect. Both the number and percentage are shown.
77
TOTAL NUMBER OF NON-COMPLIANT SHIPS IN SURVEY REPORTED 570
Number of defects reported to Authority 46
% of non-compliant ships reported 8.07
% of ships reported 8.07
% of ships not reported 91.93
NON-COMPLIANT BY TYPE OF DEFECT TOTAL AS %
Pilot ladder 337 49.2
Bulwark/Deck 140 20.44
Combination 83 12.12
Safety Equipment 125 18.25
TOTAL 685
Pilot Ladder
Bulwark/Deck
Combination
Safety Equipment
DEFECTS REPORTED TO AUTHORITY
NON-COMPLIANCE BY TYPE OF DEFECT
S A F E T Y C A M P A I G N 2 0 1 8S A F E T Y C A M P A I G N 2 0 1 8
% of ships not reported
% of ships reported
N O N - C O M P L I A N C EB Y T Y P E O F D E F E C T
68
DEFECTS OF PILOT LADDER TOTAL AS %
Not against ship’s hull 57 11.75
Steps not of suitable material 8 1.65
Poorly rigged retrieval line 51 10.52
Steps broken 14 2.89
Steps not equally spaced 26 5.36
Pilot Ladder more than 9 metres 10 2.06
Steps dirty/slippery 20 4.12
Sideropes not of suitable material 19 3.92
Pilot Ladder too far forward/Aft 14 2.89
Steps painted 8 1.65
Incorrect step fittings 29 5.98
No bulwark ladder 11 2.27
Steps not horizontal 87 17.94
Other 131 27.01
TOTAL 485
DEFECTS OF PILOT LADDER
Not against ship’s hull
Steps not of suitable material
Poorly rigged retrieval line
Steps broken
Steps not equally spaced
Pilot Ladder more than 9 metres
Steps dirty/slippery
No/faulty handhold stanchions
Ladder not secured properly
Other
DEFECTS OF BULWARK / DECK
DEFECTS OF BULWARK / DECK TOTAL AS %
No/faulty handhold stanchions 52 33.55
Ladder not secured properly 87 56.13
Other 16 10.32
TOTAL 155
Sideropes not of suitable material
Pilot Ladder too far forward/Aft
Steps painted
Incorrect step fittings
No bulwark ladder
Steps not horizontal
Other
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M A R I T I M E P I L O T S ’ A S S O C I A T I O NI N T E R N A T I O N A L M A R I T I M E P I L O T S ’ A S S O C I A T I O N
The first pie chart shows the types of defects of the pilot ladder. Both the number and percentage are shown. The second pie chart shows the types of defects of the bulwark / deck arrangements. Both the number and percentage are shown.
N O N - C O M P L I A N C EB Y T Y P E O F D E F E C T
99
Inadequate lighting at night
No lifebuoy with self-igniting light
No VHF communication with the bridge
No heaving line
No responsible officer in attendance
Other
COMBINATION DEFECTS TOTAL AS %
Accommodation Ladder not leading aft 3 1.65
Lower platform stanchions / rail incorrect rigged 10 5.49
Accommodation ladder too steep (>45 degrees) 6 3.3
Pilot Ladder not attached 1-5mabove Accommodation Ladder 28 15.38
Lower platform not horizontal 17 9.34
Ladder(s) not secured to ship’s side 59 32.42
Lower platform less than 5 metresabove the sea 29 15.93
Other 30 16.48
TOTAL 182
SAFETY EQUIPMENT DEFECTS TOTAL AS %
Inadequate lighting at night 18 9.14
No lifebuoy with self-igniting light 73 37.06
No VHF communication with the bridge 17 8.63
No heaving line 40 20.3
No responsible officer in attendance 38 19.29
Other 11 5.58
TOTAL 197
COMBINATION DEFECTS
SAFETY EQUIPMENT DEFECTS
Accommodation Ladder not leading aft
Lower platform stanchions / rail incorrect rigged
Accommodation Laddertoo steep (>45 degrees)
Pilot Ladder not attached 1.5m above Accommodation Ladder
Lower platform not horizontal
Ladder(s) not secured to ship’s side
Lower platform less than5 metres above the sea
Other
The first pie chart shows the combination defects. Both the number and percentage are shown. The second pie chart shows the safety equipment defects. Both the number and percentage are shown.
S A F E T Y C A M P A I G N 2 0 1 8S A F E T Y C A M P A I G N 2 0 1 8
RIG
GIN
G F
OR
FR
EEB
OA
RD
SO
F 9
MET
RES
OR
LES
S
HA
ND
HO
LDST
AN
CH
ION
SM
in. D
iam
. 32
mm
Min
.12
0cm
Abo
ve B
ulw
ark
MA
N-R
OPE
S(w
itho
ut k
nots
)M
in. D
iam
. 28
mm
Max
. Dia
m. 3
2m
mIF
REQ
UIR
EDBY
TH
E PI
LOT
SPR
EAD
ERM
in. 1
80
cm L
ong
Min
. 40
cm
31
-35
cm
MA
XIM
UM
9 S
TEPS
Be
twee
n sp
read
ers
5th
STE
P Fr
om
bo
tto
mm
ust
be a
spr
eade
r
6 M
ETR
ES
uno
bstr
ucte
dsh
ip’s
sid
eH
eigh
tRe
quir
ed b
y Pi
lot
SID
E RO
PES
Min
. Dia
m. 1
8m
m
ALL
STE
PSM
ust
rest
fir
mly
agai
nst
ship
’s s
ide
Han
dho
lds
Min
. 70
cmM
ax. 8
0cm
PILO
T L
AD
DER
Mu
st e
xten
dat
leas
t 2
met
res
abov
e lo
wer
plat
form
AC
CO
MM
OD
AT
ION
LA
DD
ERSe
cure
d to
sh
ip’s
sid
e Sh
ou
ld le
ad a
ft
A p
ilot
ladd
erre
qu
ires
a c
limb
of
no
t le
ss t
han
1.5
met
res
and
no
mo
re t
han
9 m
etre
s
The
low
erpl
atfo
rmsh
all b
e a
min
imu
mo
f 5
met
res
abov
e th
e se
a
CO
MB
INA
TIO
N A
RR
AN
GEM
ENT
FOR
SH
IPS
WIT
H A
FREE
BO
AR
D O
F M
OR
ET
HA
N 9
MET
RES
WH
EN N
O S
IDE
DO
OR
AV
AIL
AB
LE
Max
imu
m4
5˚
slo
pe
Low
erpl
atfo
rmh
ori
zon
tal
Reco
mm
ende
d9
met
res
free
boar
d m
ark
0.5
m
2m
2m
STER
N B
OW
Acc
om
mo
dati
on
ladd
er s
ho
uld
be s
ecu
red
tosh
ip’s
sid
e
(Usi
ng
eyep
ad,
mag
net
ic o
rpn
eum
atic
syst
em)
Ladd
er m
ust
be
firm
ly a
ttac
hed
to s
hip
’s s
ide
1.5
met
res
abov
eac
com
mo
dati
on
plat
form
NO
!N
o s
hack
les,
kno
ts o
r sp
lices
NO
!Th
e st
eps
mus
t be
equa
lly s
pace
d
NO
!Th
e st
eps
mus
t be
hori
zont
al a
nd c
hock
sun
der
the
step
s m
ust
beti
ghtl
y se
cure
d
NO
!Sp
read
ers
mus
tno
t be
lash
edbe
twee
n st
eps
NO
!Si
de r
ope
s m
ust
be e
qual
ly s
pace
d
NO
!Th
e st
eps
sho
uld
not
be p
aint
ed,
dirt
y o
r sl
ippe
ry
NO
!Lo
ops
and
tri
ppin
glin
es p
rese
nt a
trip
ping
haz
ard
and
foul
the
Pilo
t La
unch
Han
dho
lds
Min
. 70
cmM
ax. 8
0cm
Min
imum
Cle
aran
ce2
20
cm
Min
. 91
.5cm
Min
. 91
.5cm
Pad
eye
NO
OBSTRUCTIONS
PILO
T L
AD
DER
WIN
CH
REE
L
Min
imum
Cle
aran
ce2
20
cm
Min
imum
91
.5cm
Han
dhol
dsM
in. 7
0cm
Max
. 80c
m
All
pilo
t la
dder
win
ch r
eels
sho
uld
have
a m
eans
of
prev
enti
on
fro
mbe
ing
acci
dent
ally
ope
rate
d.
The
brak
e an
d lo
ck m
ust
be
ope
rati
ve o
n m
anua
lly o
pera
ted
win
ches
.
Pow
er w
inch
es m
ust
have
an
ope
rati
ve s
afet
y de
vice
to
lock
th
e w
inch
in p
osi
tio
n.
Side
ope
ning
Ship
’s s
ide
doo
rsus
ed f
or
tran
sfer
sho
uld
not
ope
no
utw
ard
Min
imum
Cle
aran
ce2
20
cm
Min
imum
91
.5cm
75
cm7
5cm
Han
dho
lds
Min
. 70
cmM
ax. 8
0cm
Han
dho
ld s
tan
chio
ns
rigi
dly
secu
red
to d
eck
Life
buoy
wit
hse
lf-i
gnit
ing
ligh
t
Bu
lwar
k &
Pilo
t la
dder
secu
red
to d
eck
stro
ng
poin
ts
Resp
on
sibl
e O
ffic
erin
co
nta
ct w
ith
bri
dge
REQ
UIR
ED B
OA
RD
ING
AR
RA
NG
EMEN
TS
FOR
PIL
OT
In a
cco
rdan
ce w
ith
SO
LAS
Regu
lati
on
V/2
3 &
IMO
Res
olu
tio
n A
.10
45
(27
)
INT
ERN
AT
ION
AL
MA
RIT
IME
PILO
TS’
ASS
OC
IAT
ION
H.Q
.S.“
Wel
lingt
on
”Te
mpl
e St
airs
,Vic
tori
a Em
ban
kmen
t,Lo
ndo
n W
C2
R 2
PN T
el:+
44
(0
)20
72
40
39
73
Fax
:+4
4 (
0)2
0 7
21
0 3
51
8 E
mai
l:o
ffic
e@im
pah
q.o
rgTh
is d
ocu
men
t an
d al
l IM
O P
ilot-
rela
ted
docu
men
ts a
re a
vaila
ble
for
dow
nlo
ad a
t:h
ttp:
//w
ww
.impa
hq
.org
A B C
I M PA O F F I C E R S
President
Captain Simon Pelletier - Canada
Senior Vice President / Treasurer
Captain Jean-Philippe Casanova - France
Vice Presidents
Captain Alvaro Moreno - Panama
Captain Choi, Yeong Sig - Korea
Captain John Pearn - UK
Captain Oumar Dramé - Senegal
Captain Ricardo Falcão - Brazil
I M PA S E C R E TA R I AT
Secretary General
Nick Cutmore
Executive Secretary
Caron James
Executive Assistant
Eliane Blanch
T H E I N T E R N AT I O N A LM A R I T I M E P I L O T ’ S A S S O C I AT I O N
International Maritime Pilots’ Association (IMPA)HQS Wellington, Temple Stairs, Victoria Embankment, London WC2R 2PNTelephone: +44 20 7240 3973 Fax: +44 20 7240 3518Email: [email protected] Website: www.impahq.org