Michael Grey is former editor of Lloyd’s List.
A fine piece of research has emerged from the World Maritime University which put together a team to look at the regulations surrounding the recording of seafarers’ hours of work and rest. Are people flogging their hours to stay apparently legal and ensure that any inspectors leave with smiles on their faces? Perish the thought! We need to think about the practice as one of “adjustment” which seems rather more respectable, when it is put like that.
Nevertheless, the report “A Culture of Adjustment” points to such widespread malpractices that you have to wonder what the point was of all those well-meaning regulations designed, several years ago, to prevent seafarers keeling over from exhaustion because of the normal operation of their ships. It summarises these as “systemic failures”, but it might better be described as all sides; shipping companies, regulators and the wretched seafarers themselves, effectively colluding in a system which just isn’t working.
It very effectively confirms all the anecdotal evidence that filters from the sea in their unofficial channels to the shore – that the whole concept of “safe” manning levels agreed between ship operators and flag states is wishful thinking and that there are just not enough bodies on most ships to do all the work that needs to be done. We have always known that “the ship comes first” and that if the choice is going to bed, or turning to and sailing, or completing a task, there really isn’t a contest. The researchers put it rather nicely - “prioritising your allegiance” – this conflict which invariably only settled one way.
It is made quite clear, from the large number of quotations from very many interviewees, that the most important aspect is not to implement the regulations, but to demonstrate that they are being complied with. That way, there will be no awkward questions from port state inspectors about red marks in the hours reports, and subsequent “we fail to understand” communications from angry managers ashore. The often terrible relationship between those afloat and ashore frequently seems to come to the fore, with people aboard more worried about their job security than they would be working for decent employers.
The researchers go to town on the sheer inhumanity and impracticality of the 6/6hr watch system practiced in so many small ships, and the utter impossibility of their operating/rest hours remaining “legal”. But they then point to the fierce defenders of such a system which involve people working hours that wouldn’t look out of place in a Victorian coal mine. They also emphasise that it is a ship’s time in port which throw up the most problems, from the port state inspectors waking up exhausted ships’ personnel to verify their hours of rest records, and visitors demanding attention from officers who haven’t been off their feet, possibly for days.
And in the macho culture of shipping, when the priority above all else is expediting the voyage, there seems little faith that any feedback from the ship will be treated with any serious intent. There is no sense that any appeal for extra hands to spread the burden more fairly will not fall on stony ground.
This report is well worth reading and also begs a lot of awkward questions about other systems that look brilliant on paper, but fall very flat when translated to the workings of a busy ship. How much of the doubtless important work at IMO, on necessary regulations, are going to end up with extra work for the ever-fewer people aboard ship? Think of the awesome amount of regulations on fuel and emissions in the current legislative pipeline that will keep masters and chief engineers burning the midnight oil in future years. And yet, think of the people who might have helped with this burden in past years – the pursers – radio officers – writers - additional officers – whose ranks were deemed superfluous by the bean counters and purged without a second thought.
The WMU work, which ought to ruffle a lot of feathers, talks of “cognitive dissonance , where deviance is normalised”. I suppose you might suggest that deviance is only normalised because anything else is seen to be impractical by all the “stakeholders”, although they would prefer to use the polite term “adjustment” to describe something less respectable. And you might also suggest that there is another culture - that of cheapness, which ensures that ships will continue to be under-manned, because their users just won’t pay for anything better. And that culture will take some changing.
https://commons.wmu.se/lib_reports/66/? ... e-86763977
Hours of Work and Rest-Home truths on recording practices By Michael Grey
- The Dieselduck
- Administrator
- Posts: 4195
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:41 pm
- Currently located: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada (West Coast of Canada)
- Contact:
Re: Hours of Work and Rest-Home truths on recording practices By Michael Grey
Every time i read his insightful comments, backed by obvious insight, I think that he hit's it on the nail.
Martin Leduc
Certified Marine Engineer and Webmaster
Martin's Marine Engineering Page
http://www.dieselduck.net
Certified Marine Engineer and Webmaster
Martin's Marine Engineering Page
http://www.dieselduck.net
- JK
- Enduring Contributor
- Posts: 3067
- Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:29 am
- Currently located: East Coast, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Hours of Work and Rest-Home truths on recording practices By Michael Grey
The statement, "the ship comes first" pretty well sums everything up in one sentiment. Even ashore, I lived by it while working on the tech support.
Safe manning is merely the minimal amount of bodies to get a ship from point A to B. Then they work obscene hours discharging or loading cargoes. If there is a problem enroute, there goes the off watch. Fire? Flooding? There's the lifeboats, if they will lower to the water without killing you in the process.
Safe manning is merely the minimal amount of bodies to get a ship from point A to B. Then they work obscene hours discharging or loading cargoes. If there is a problem enroute, there goes the off watch. Fire? Flooding? There's the lifeboats, if they will lower to the water without killing you in the process.
- D Winsor
- Superintendent
- Posts: 362
- Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:23 am
- Currently located: Dartmouth
- Contact:
Re: Hours of Work and Rest-Home truths on recording practices By Michael Grey
When it comes to the "Safe" Minimum Manning Regulations. The biggest loophole that vessel owners love is that, in some cases, it takes the addition of a single crewmember to meet the requirement for cargo and maintenance operations by the crew.
I know the vessel owners would fight it tooth and nail but in my opinion the regulation should be changed to where, depending on the class of vessel. The number of additional crew required above the minimum to transit a vessel from point A to B. The number of crew required for cargo operations and proper maintenance of the vessel, should be a percentage of the minimum crew numbers, starting as a minimum of 25% and go to as high as 100%.
This would go a long way in fattening the curve in the pandemic of crew fatigue
I know the vessel owners would fight it tooth and nail but in my opinion the regulation should be changed to where, depending on the class of vessel. The number of additional crew required above the minimum to transit a vessel from point A to B. The number of crew required for cargo operations and proper maintenance of the vessel, should be a percentage of the minimum crew numbers, starting as a minimum of 25% and go to as high as 100%.
This would go a long way in fattening the curve in the pandemic of crew fatigue
Troubleshooting 101 "Don't over think it - K.I.S.S. it"
- JK
- Enduring Contributor
- Posts: 3067
- Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:29 am
- Currently located: East Coast, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Hours of Work and Rest-Home truths on recording practices By Michael Grey
given that cargoes on some of the ships are well over $100 million profit, well god forbid if they nodded to a couple of extra bodies onboard.