Branch Technical Meeting - London
Fatigue – Two Watch Ships
The December technical meeting of the London Branch, held on HQS Wellington attracted
another large audience. This included delegates attending the Maritime Safety Committee
meeting at the IMO, who had passed up a free evening reception to participate in the
discussion.
Cdre. David Squire FNI, chaired the panel of speakers: Michael Grey, Lloyds List; Colin
Sandeman, Assistant Director, Bahamas Maritime Authority and Eric Murdoch, Chief
Surveyor for Charles Taylor (Standard P&I Club).
Addressing fatigue
David Squire opened by quoting from a recent Finnish report on the result of a study of the
condition of seafarers, the frequency of fatigue as well as the effects of shift systems and
other background factors on alertness. Of the 185 seafarers who responded to the study, 17 %
had fallen asleep at least once while keeping watch and the study showed that the 6/6 watch
system increased the likelihood of symptoms of tiredness and therefore also the possible risk
of nodding off compared to other watch systems.
Michael Grey began by saying that other modes of transport take fatigue very seriously
indeed – road, rail and aviation have strict regulations designed to prevent fatigue and
mitigate its effect, backed up by legislation. There has been a modicum of progress on
addressing fatigue at sea, but it needs more proactive work from the authorities. By the
nature of their profession seafarers expect to work long hours and have developed their own
solutions to combat fatigue. Copious amounts of black coffee seems to be favourite. But it is
painfully obvious that the two watch system is demonstrably unsustainable. The industry
should consider this in the context of trying to encourage young people to go to sea. Michael
ended by reiterating that in the 21st century we should not be operating ships in such cavalier
fashion - we need action now.
Safe Manning
Colin Sandeman outlined the current regulations in SOLAS and STCW relating to principles
of safe manning, and noted that very little of safe manning refers to operation of the ship –
maintenance, preparation of holds, etc. in addition to navigation duties. Owners who reflag
their vessels should not expect their manning to be reduced, and, in fact, some flag states
may ask the owner to increase their manning to comply with their regulations. However, as
most ships are now built with no spare accommodation, increasing the numbers may not be
possible. Conversely, manning should only be decreased if trade and management systems
justify it.
Future legislation
Principles for establishing the manning levels of ships are under review with implementation
planned for 2010 or 2011. Colin explained there are three contributing domains: owners’
business model, operational context of the ship and the human element. Each part has an
assessment and they must integrate with each other. For the human element, pressure must be
maintained on owners/administrators to ensure a viable Safety Management System which
gives an accountable attention to crew welfare.
Human error
In his presentation, Eric Murdoch noted that some of the largest and most expensive claims
have been caused by failures on the bridge and it will come as no surprise that the majority of
incidents are caused by mistakes rather than equipment failure – mistakes are not made by
machines, rather they are made by people.
Eric referred to an MCA human element study which concluded that the most common
causal factors were: incorrect knowledge, skills & attitudes, failure to appreciate the situation
and failure to take corrective action with the principal cause of these being training, fatigue
and working stress. Eric continued by noting that rapid promotion has produced senior
officers with little practical experience. With the present crewing crisis the maritime
industry has now passed the time where there is a need for additional engineering safe
guards, procedures or legislation. The industry needs immediate action to train, develop and
improve the people.
Opening the debate from the audience, one delegate pointed out that the problem was not
with two-watch ships, it was a problem with two-navigator ships. He quoted statistics from
Norway that ships running aground had increased by 25% in 2007 and in 1 out of 7
groundings the OOW had fallen asleep. And the remedy was to introduce a bridge watch
alarm to keep them awake! Another reported that even though his company employed four
navigating officers on their vessels, they still had a fatigue problem. This was not helped by
the many inspections ships have to undergo nowadays; a situation exacerbated by some
officious inspectors insisting inspections take place at any hour, without regard to the welfare
or hours of work of the seafarers.
Seafarers Health
One of the pilots in the audience said that he was increasingly finding vessels, particularly
smaller ships, which had new technology fitted, but with the master having to work even
harder, and losing interest at a critical period of the voyage. Another delegate said that it was
not just about safety and accidents, but it is about the health of the seafarer and the lack of
rest when in port due to the increase in inspections. There has been some success at IMO,
through the Maritime Safety Committee and Standards of Training and Watchkeeping subcommittee, but unless regulations are applied unilaterally, the health of the seafarer will
continue to be a problem.
One delegate pointed out that the two-watch system could be stopped by EU regulations. If
all signed up to ILO standards that 6/6 watchkeeping is illegal as the hours of work cannot be
complied with, PSC officers could stop the practice immediately.
Commercial Pressure
Further points raised included: ships are being made to work harder than before, and there are
too many regulators with no opposition to this. Can we put commercial pressure on the
companies, through insurance companies for instance? Can we hit owners in the pocket
through insurers increasing premiums to those whose vessels are involved in accidents
caused by fatigue? Insurers should put pressure on owners and have the vessels declared
unseaworthy if the crew is fatigued. However, statistics are difficult to quantify by cause and
this is the problem in getting fatigue to be recognised as a cause of accidents. It is very
difficult to monitor and record and we need legislation which is useable.
But, legislation is moving forward, albeit slowly, and is governed by the speed of IMO
regulations. Flag states are not perfect, but some do detain vessels. However, if an owner
wants to reduce the manning levels, he will look around for a flag which will accommodate
him.
Another delegate proposed: why not dangle a carrot in front of the owners by reducing their
premiums if they actively combat fatigue on their vessels.
David Squire closed the proceedings saying he was encouraged by the input from the
audience and from the panel. Investing in people rather than the cost of shipping is the way
forward for enlightened owners.
If you wish to contribute to the NI Fatigue Forum, visit www.nautinst.org/fatigue/index.htm