Questions? Call 888-624-8373

PAPERBACK
list:$39.50
Web:$35.55
add to cart

PDF BOOK
your price: $30.50
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Crew Size and Maritime Safety (1990)
Marine Board (MB)
 Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems (CETS)

Page
122
bottomleft bottomright
  E-mail
 Facebook
 Digg
 Stumble
 Twitter
More
Page
122

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 122
Appendix D Maritime Management Perspectives In late 1988, the committee decided to conduct its own series of inter- views to assess the experience with smaller crews of a range of companies operating ships that trade in the United States. Chairman Benkert, in consultation with the Marine Board staff, identified candidate shipping companies representing a range of trades and vessel types. Letters requesting an interview were mailed in December 1988, en- closing the questionnaire shown below. In the spring and summer of 1989, a series of personal interviews with senior executive maritime managers were conducted by Chairman Benkert with the assistance of Capt. George Ireland, consultant to the committee. Questionnaire for Shipping Company Interviews Committee on the Effect of Smaller Crews on Maritime Safety December 1988 Attached is a questionnaire for use during interviews of ship own- ers/operators. Its purpose is two-fold; first as a means to ask the proper questions and not overlook any area, and second, to bring uniformity to the information we are seeking, that is, to validate the information we receive by asking the same questions of more than one operator. The questionnaire is broken down into five areas; personnel, vessel design and equipment, operations, safety experience with small crews and externalities. It should be kept in mind that the reason for this study is to assess 122

OCR for page 123
MARITIME MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVES 123 the effect of smaller crews on maritime safety and therefore the questions should be asked with that objective in mind. Personnel Assuming that an oceangoing vessel engaged in international trade having a crew of 9 to 11 persons is to be operated by your company, what personnel standards and/or qualifications would you impose so as to maintain an acceptable level of safety? Source of personnel? Special qualifications? Dual-license requirement or other cross training Pilotage experience/qualification Medical; any special physical qualifications Special training? Technical training Human relations Stress management Methods Simulators lopes What conditions of employment might be considered, such as incen- tives, profit sharing, budget performance, length of service, participation in safety programs, etc? Who would do the actual employing of shipboard personnel? Would you utilize a ship management company to perform this role for reduced crews? Is continuity of shipboard personnel a safety concern? Vessel Design and Equipment For an oceangoing ship to be safely operated with a crew of 9 to 11 persons some special features, such as labor-saving devices, would have to be designed into the ship. In your opinion, what are the con- cepts/features/items you would insist upon having in order for the ship to be operated as safely as one manned by 18 to 21 persons? Pilot house Engine room

OCR for page 124
124 APPENDIX D Control systems, such as steering, propulsion, electrical distribution, safety alarms Deck/mooring equipment Internal communications External communications Primary lifesaving equipment Cargo and ballast Safety systems such as fire extinguishing systems, alarms, etc. What are your thoughts about a small number of persons being able to cope with emergencies such as a machinery space fire? How often should safety systems be examined and by whom? What are your expectations of the role of regulatory persons with regard to these systems? The Coast Guard has promulgated information regarding technical requirements for automation of vital systems, and also requires approved test procedures be maintained aboard for these systems. In your experience, has this been an adequate way to assure that these systems are kept in proper working order? What safety systems, if any, should be exclusively redundant aboard ships with a reduced crew? For example, should there be multiple means to alert persons in case of fire or other emergency? Should there be additionaVback-up fixed fire extinguishing systems? Operations manning? What type of ship would you envision being suitable for such reduced Tanker Bulk carrier Container ship How would such a ship be assisted from shore, i.e., would special support persons be required at ports/terminals for maintenance, etc.? What are your thoughts about the role of regulatory bodies such as the Coast Guard or the American Bureau of Shipping with regard to overseeing support activity for such a ship? What are your thoughts/experience about supplementing the core crew with maintenance teams, mooring teams, etc., from time to time?

OCR for page 125
MARITIME MANAGEMENT PERSPECT~ES 125 What training would you require for crew members manning ships having smaller crews so they could deal with emergencies? What provisions or precautions would you institute so such crews could deal with special circumstances such as extended operation (long hours), or loss of manpower due to sickness, injury, etc.? What are your thoughts about length of service aboard such a ship for crew members? Should the regulatory bodies certify such ships for particular routes, taking into account company support resources, or are such ships capable of being certified for operation anywhere? Safety Experience Does your company have records you could share regarding safety experience with oceangoing vessels manned with smaller crews? Has reduction in crew size had measurable effect on vessel casualties, pollution incidents or personnel injuries? Is fatigue an issue to be dealt with? If so, how has your company addressed this issue? What, if any, conclusions regarding safety have you drawn from your operating experience with these vessels? Have you experienced any casualties aboard ships with smaller crews that appear to be related to crew size, qualification or training which would be of value to others to learn about? Externalities The concept of operating an oceangoing ship with reduced manning has impacts in several areas, some of which influence safety such as availability of qualified crew members, special insurance requirements, maintenance of a seaworthy vessel, etc. What organizational changes, if any, has your company implemented in order to maintain safe ships with smaller crews? crews? How is timely maintenance accomplished aboard ships with smaller What additional (or fewer) shipboard duties occur as a consequence of manning with smaller crews? What additional measures, if any, would you like to implement in the future aboard your ships manned with smaller crews to improve safety?

Representative terms from entire chapter:

safety experience