|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK PDF BOOK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
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 94
Appendix B
Survey of Classification Societies
and Foreign Governments
From the outset, the committee acknowledged that the requests for
reduced manning on U.S. merchant ships were not unique. Foreign-flag
vessels operating worldwide and entering U.S. waters were operating with
noticeably fewer crew members along the same trade routes as U.S.-flag ves-
sels. Individual foreign governments and international organizations such
as the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the International Mar-
itime Organization (IMO) had been similarly obliged to address shipboard
manning levels while considering the safety consequences of increasing
shipboard automation capabilities, sustaining the international competitive-
ness of the national flag fleet, preventing the "flagging out" of ships from
high cost national fleets to lower cost "offshore registries," and searching
for remedies to a shortage of labor in the national merchant marine.
Occasionally, reports of smaller crew experiments reached the U.S.
shipping industry audience via industry associations or other private orga-
nizations overseas. Those reports were often abbreviated in such a way
that the perspective of the official classification societies and the national
maritime authorities were unavailable. Therefore, while the final results of
the experiments may have been reported to a wide American audience, the
process by which the decisions had been taken to bring the experiment to
a successful conclusion were less well documented.
The committee decided to initiate direct inquiries to a number of
official organizations about how the requests for smaller crews coming
from ship operators were being handled. The objective of the effort was to
94
OCR for page 95
SURVEY OF CLASSIFICATION S=lETIES ED FO=IGN GOURMETS 95
determine what criteria had been developed to assess the safety aspects of
reduced manning levels.
In March 1989, a letter questionnaire was sent to 17 organizations
in Britain, Western Europe, and Japan requesting comments on issues
of crew requirements for smaller crew requests, vessel requirements for
smaller crew requests, and the safety performance of vessels operating with
smaller crews. The letter and accompanying questionnaire are attached.
RESULTS OF SURVEY
Thirteen replies were received. The IMO secretariat provided several
documents, five classification societies sent informative replies, and seven
foreign government maritime authorities sent copies of domestic regulations
and policy documents on shipboard manning, including the issues of smaller
crews. The bibliography of replies and documents provided is attached.
The results showed that the classification societies generally deferred
to official government authorities in determining manning levels. None of
the classification societies surveyed has authority to determine the manning
of a vessel. All five are active in establishing requirements for ship design
and construction requirements the traditional purview of the classifica-
tion society—and have extended their activities into developing specialized
hardware and vessel layout requirements to enable the vessel to be classi-
fied for unattended engine room operations or reduced manning of bridge
watches.
The maritime authorities' replies confirmed that the authorities reserve
the setting of merchant ship crew numbers, qualifications, and training.
Smaller crew ships and reduced manning requests are increasingly common.
The maritime authority replies regarding specialized vessel requirements
for smaller crew requests resect the close relationships between the official
maritime authorities and the classification societies in the maritime industry.
(This degree of symbiosis in a government organization delegating technical
oversight to a private organization may be unique to the merchant marine.)
All seven maritime authorities indicated that they had developed criteria
for considering vessel manning, including reduced manning requests. These
criteria include technical features of vessel design and construction typically
overseen by classification societies.
Maritime authorities use criteria for reduced manning levels from two
sources, the International Maritime Organization conventions and their
own domestic regulations. No IMO convention specifically establishes safe
manning standards, but five of seven national authorities use the Principles
of Safe Manning (resolution N481 [XII], adopted November 19, 1981),
which are elaborated in the International Convention on Standards of
Raining, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (1978 STCW
OCR for page 96
96
APPENDIX B
Convention). These principles are not aimed at achieving any fixed crew
size, but set out overall functional criteria that must be sustained on any
vessel in service, regardless of the number of seafarers in the crew.
The replies indicate a changing definition of the ship's officers and
seamen's duties, away from the traditional division into deck and engi-
neering departments still required by U.S. law. Leo national authorities
provided copies of national merchant marine personnel laws and regula-
tions, showing that they have been substantively amended or completely
restructured within the past decade, specifically in response to pressure
from Beet owners and favorable results of smaller crew ship experiments.
Norway established new regulations in 1987, for example, and Sweden's
new standards date from 1988. The Dutch authority's reply indicates a de-
liberate four-stage transition from a traditional crew organization to what
they consider a smaller basic crew, with restructured crew qualifications.
The unanimous response to the questions on vessel casualties was that
there had been none that could be related to the introduction of smaller
crews on existing or new ships. Three national authorities even volunteered
that the operation of smaller crew vessels improved safety, because crew
members were more experienced, better trained, and individually more
aware of the need to work safely than was the case in traditionally manned
vessels.
OCR for page 97
S~~F ~ Ha_ ~ S~ ~ ~ OO_ 97
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
CO~lS~ON ON ENCINEER1NG AND TECHNICAL SYSTEMS
2101 Constitution Avenue Washington, D.C. 20418
~^R1NE BO^RD
Dear
SELLER CREWS SURVEY LETTER
(Sent to Classification Societies/National Authorities)
ark 6, 1989
~-89-~7
In the United States, as in other maritime nations, ship owners are
operating their vessels with fewer crew, relying more on automation
technologies and planed ship maintenance programs than was the case ten years
ago. Me kited States Coast Guard, Rich is responsible for all U.S.
merchant vessel safety, must decide nether each vessel can operate safely
with a given namer of people. At the Coast Guard's request, the Marine Board
of the National Research Council is assessing the effect of smaller crews on
maritime safety. Our aim is to anise the U.S. Coast Guard on how to weigh
the requests made of them for reduced making, rather than to spell out Mat
_er of crew meters makes a ship safe.
Of FlCE L~^T1O~.
Ceorgetown Facility
Room H^ 250
2~1 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
Telephone: (202) =-3119
I: I) ~
Me enclosed committee roster demonstrates that we have involved broad
representation from Me American maritime community to stub Mat changes may
be needed to ensure that ships and crews continue to sail safely. Our
co_ittee's approach to examining these factors is presented in the enclosed
Statement of Task. Our work should be finished by year's end with a public
report to be released thereafter.
We request your assistance in our task. We want to learn how similar
organizations, such as yours, hue approached the introduction of smaller
crews on new and existing merchant vessels. Our ok deliberations will be
improved by Me opportunity to learn how you and your colleagues considered
the s_e question and Mat factors you evaluated in making your decision on
the matter.
You can be most helpful by answering the enclosed list of questions. AM
remarks you may offer on the safety of smaller crews, in addition to the
questions, would also be helpful; so would references that may lead us to
other efforts, such as our ok, Midway on behalf of ship operators,
classification societies, or national authorities.
e hobo=' R~- Ovary/ is fhe priced _1~ ~~ ~ fAe If 4~dr'~ ~ ~~ ond 'h' Id Amy ~ Z~'eri
f@ ~~e &@~r~me'11 Q"d Beer @~'zs
OCR for page 98
98
APPENDIX B
2
Thank you in advance for your assistance. Your response will be most
helpful if received by April 21, 1989. I will be pleased to provide you with
the final report of this project early next year. Please direct your
responses to:
Mr. Charles A. Bookman, Director
Marine Board, HA 250
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue
Washington, DC 20418
Attn: Committee on the Effect of Smaller Crews
on Maritime Safety
Sincerely,
W.M. Benkert
Committee Chairman
WMB/LAM:GG
Enclosures (4)
Survey Questions
Statement of Task
Committee Roster
Marine Board Brochure
OCR for page 99
SURVEY OF CLASSIFICATION SURETIES ED FO=IGN GOURMETS 99
SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES
QUESTIONS ON SAFETY OF SMALLER CREWS
Prepared by
Committee on the Effect of Smaller Crews on Maritime Safety
Marine Board
National Research Council
March 3, 1989
for
National Shipping Organizations and International Classification Societies
Consideration of Reduced Manning Levels
Has your organization considered approving, on a permanent or
temporary basis, manning levels below a total complement of 16
for oceangoing merchant vessels?
If so, please name the vessels and tell us the number of crew
members you approved for each vessel.
Please describe the crew license requirements, on a permanent
or temporary basis, and crew skill qualifications you required
when approving this smaller crew.
B. Criteria for Reduced Manning Levels
Does your organization have published criteria or guidelines
regarding approval of reduced manning? Are criteria different
for new and existing vessels?
What vessel features, design requirements, or operational perfor-
mance requirements did you consider important to your decision
to approve reduced manning levels? Similarly, are there any fea-
tures or requirements that would lead you to disapprove reduced
manning for a specific vessel?
What criteria have you devised to judge the overall safety of the
vessel when operated at the reduced manning level?
OCR for page 100
100
APPENDIX B
Did your organization authorize a trial operational period for the
vessel, to demonstrate safe performance with the smaller crew?
If so, was it a prelude to permanent approval of the smaller
crew? How did you evaluate the trial period? Please elaborate.
C. Experience of Vessels with Smaller Crews
Does your organization have quantitative data regarding the rela-
tionship between crew complement and vessel safety or personnel
safety?
Has any vessel approved for operation with fewer than 16 crew
members been involved in a major operating casualty; e.g., col-
lision, grounding, sinking, or major machinery failure? Was the
smaller number of crew on board a factor in either causing or re-
sponding to the casualty emergency? Please provide supporting
information.
Has your organization developed a position regarding the rela-
tionship between manning level and vessel safety or personnel
safety?
Please send your replies to:
Thank you for your assistance.
Mr. Charles ~ Bookman, Director
Marine Board, HA 250
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue
Washington, DC 20418
Attn: Committee on the Effect of
Smaller Crews on Maritime Safety
OCR for page 101
SURVEY OF CLASSIFICATION SURETIES ED FO~IGN GO~=ME=S 101
Committee on the Effect of Smaller Crews
on Maritime Safety
1989 Survey of Classification Societies
and
National Maritime Authorities
On March 6, 1989, the committee sent a letter questionnaire to 17
classification societies and foreign national authorities. The Marine Board
received these 13 replies.
Reply Mom International Maritime Organization
1. International Maritime Organization, dated March 22, 1989, prepared
by Y. Sasamura, Assistant Secretary General, Director, Maritime
Safety Division, with enclosures:
IMO Resolution ~ 481(XII), principles of safe manning
B. STOW Regulation II/1, paragraph 9 lookout,
C. COLREG Rule 5, lookout
D. SOLAS Regulation 13, manning.
Replies Mom Classification Societies
2. Det norske Veritas, dated April 26, 1989, prepared by Tor-Christian
Mathiesen, Head of Division Ship and Offshore, with enclosures:
Introduction to Det Norske Veritas, established 1864. Rules
for Nautical Safety, Naut-A, Naut-B, Naut-C, July 1986 and
Tentative Rules for One-Man Bridge Operation in Ocean Ar-
eas and Coastal Waters (W1-OC):
B.1. Philosophy on manning of ships;
B.2. Methodology used in determining manning levels;
B.3. DnV's approach for establishing technical standards in relation
to manpower;
B.4. Answers to questions on safety of smaller crews.
Lloyd's Register, dated April 5, 1989, prepared by J. G. Beaumont,
Chief Ship Surveyor, no enclosures.
4. Registro Italiano Navale, dated April 5, 1989, prepared by office of
the Direzione Generate, no enclosures.
Bureau Veritas, dated April 6, 1989, prepared by Managing Director
Marine Branch, no enclosures.
6. Nippon Kaiji Kyokai, dated April 17, 1989, prepared by K. Shiraishi,
General Manager, Machinery Department, with enclosures:
OCR for page 102
102
1989.
APPENDIX B
Modernized ships (1 page),
B. Modernized ships of type 2 (16 crew members) as of February
7. American Bureau of Shipping, dated November 30, 1989, prepared by
Richard T. Soper, Chairman and President, no enclosures.
Replies Tom National Azlthor'`ies
8. Netherlands Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Directoraat-Gen-
eraal Scheepvaart en Maritieme Zaken, dated April 17, 1989, prepared
by Mr. R. van der Poet, the Head of the Ship's Safety Department, on
behalf of the Head of Shipping Inspection, no enclosures.
9. Canadian Coast Guard, dated April 18, 1989, prepared by M. J.
Hubbard, Director General Ship Safety Branch, with enclosures:
~ Canada Shipping Act, Chapter 1481, ship's deck watch reg-
ulations. Regulations respecting the establishment of deck watches and
the number and qualifications of navigational personnel on ships, with 6
amendments.
B. Canada Shipping Act Chapter 1466, Safe manning regulations.
Regulations respecting the manning of steamships, with two amendments.
10. Der Bundesminister fur Verkehr (in German), dated April 18, 1989
prepared by Herr Hapke (no first name given). Translated by NRC
staff member Ms. Hanu, with enclosure:
~ Excerpt (1 page) of the Abweichungen van der Regelbesatzung
(in German, not translated).
11. Sjofartsdirektoratet (Norwegian Maritime Directorate), dated April 13,
1989 prepared by Emil Jansen, Deputy Director General of Shipping
and Navigation. Please direct inquiries however to Principal Surveyor
A Bornes, with enclosures.
~ The regulations of March 17, 1987 concerning the manning of
Norwegian ships.
B. The regulations of July 1, 1987 concerning qualifications re-
quired for personnel on Norwegian ships for whom a certificate of compe-
tency is not required.
C. The Act of June 5, 1981, No. 42, concerning certification of
personnel on Norwegian ships, drilling units and other mobile offshore
installations, with appurtenant regulations (47 pages) dated December 11,
1981 concerning:
certificates of competency for masters and mates,
OCR for page 103
SURVEY OF CLASSIFICATION S~lETIES ED FO=IGN GOURMETS 103
qualifications required for masters of passenger ships of
less than 25 gross register tons,
minimum age, etc. for masters of certain engine-propelled
vessels of less than 25 gross register tons,
certificates of competency for marine engineer officers,
certificates of competency as marine electro-automation
officer,
certificates of competency for marine cooks (fishing), ma-
rine chief cooks and marine catering officers, and
certificates of competency for personnel on drilling units
and other mobile offshore installations.
D. Regulations of January 14, 1985 concerning special require-
ments with regard to training and qualifications for personnel on tankers.
12. U.K Department of Transport Marine Directorate, dated April 13,
1989, prepared by Captain J. Groves, Nautical Surveyor, with enclo-
sures:
~ Department of Transport application for safe manning certifi-
cate (revised 1987),
B. Safe manning certificate for United Kingdom registered sea-
going ship (revised 1987),
C. Merchant Shipping Notice No. M1178, manning of merchant
ships registered in the United Kingdom.
13. Sjofartsverket Sjofartsinspektionen (Swedish authority), dated April 24,
1989, prepared by Kjell Eliasson, of the Fartygsoperativa sektionen,
Bemanning, with enclosures:
Ship Safety Act (1988:49) Chapter 5 Manning of Ships,
B. Ship Safety Ordinance (1988:594) Sections 1 through 20.
14. Danish Maritime Authority, dated June 19, 1989, prepared by T. R.
Funder, Director General, with enclosure:
June 16, 1989, reply to questionnaire on safety of smaller
crews.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
reduced manning
