AMSA’s priorities are well-intentioned but ineffective

AT AN industry Q&A session following an Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) board meeting held in Brisbane I was pleased to have the opportunity to provide some feedback to board members and senior executives.

I explained at the meeting that most vessels visiting Australian ports are foreign-owned and operated. The owners of these vessels are invariably $2 companies registered in a flag of convenience state. The companies usually hold solely one asset, a vessel ultimately under the umbrella of a head owner. Often that owner will have multiple vessels but with myriad single-ship companies owning just the one vessel. The head owner will control and possess ownership of all the ship owning companies but there may be many other interposed entities.

This structure is used to protect the owner from tax and other liabilities associated with ship ownership and operation. There has been considerable consolidation of shipping over the last 20 or more years, so the ownership of vessels has become more concentrated with fewer owners controlling larger fleets.

Banned vessels can easily be substituted 

An AMSA ban on one ship or one ship-owning entity is ineffective as the head owner would merely substitute another vessel, if one of his vessels were banned and there was an opportunity to carry cargo to or from Australia.

In many instances the vessel’s owner is merely a tonnage provider. That is, the owner charters out (time charters) their vessels for a period of time to vessel operators who earn freight revenue based on cargoes the vessel carry during the term of the charter. The operator will often use a manning agent to provide the ship’s crew and consequently is responsible for the payment of crew’s wages.

AMSA’s port state control is focused on enforcement of the International Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) and may see ships banned from Australia for a period of time, based on defects disclosed during PSC inspections. These bans for non-compliance relate almost exclusively to crew conditions on board and unpaid wages.

An AMSA ban of a vessel or vessel owner for this reason is misdirected, as in most instances the vessel owner is not responsible under the charter party (T/C) for the payment of wages nor the onboard living conditions. 

MLC attention is laudable but should not be the main safety focus 

AMSA enforcement of the MLC is commendable but should not be the primary focus of AMSA PSC inspections if the intent is to improve safety outcomes.

I explained that in the past there were ‘’ships of shame”, defective vessels routinely visiting Australian ports. PSC inspections, and ship detention until the defects are remedied, has been an effective AMSA strategy in improving the standard of vessels calling at the nation’s ports. That is, PSC has essentially eliminated the ‘Ships of Shame’, the sub-standard and defective vessels operating in Australian waters, and owners with non-compliant tonnage mostly know to trade elsewhere.

The highest risk factor in shipping remains human error, to which experts attribute the major causative factor for over 80% of accidents or reportable incidents. Most of the vessels visiting Australian ports are from overseas owners and or operators with foreign crews overseas trained and holding foreign certification. It has been well recorded in the maritime press for over twenty years that some overseas certificates of competency are fraudulently issued or can be ‘bought’.

Ironically AMSA itself has identified the problem of the dubious standard or integrity of some foreign-issued certificates by requiring competency exams and issue of Certificates of Recognition for those seafarers wanting to work in the Australian industry but holding foreign ‘tickets’. 

Seafarer quality is extremely variable 

The seafarer competency and supply problem has been exacerbated by an Australian and world-wide shortage of seafarers.

The challenge for AMSA is: how do they verify the skills on those on board the vessel? Present PSC inspections do not appear to be able to adequately assess the training, skills nor competency of the crews nor familiarity of the navigating officers with the onboard navigation systems nor safety management systems training.

It is not uncommon for coastal (Great Barrier Reef) pilots to assist the navigating officers and to need to explain to them how to operate the onboard navigation systems, thanks to poor training or a lack of seagoing experience. Coastal (GBR) pilots are more exposed to this situation of the skill sets (or otherwise) of less experienced navigating officers than port pilots, where the master is invariably on the bridge during the port/ bay/ river pilotage and berthing/unberthing. A characteristic of coastal pilotage in the GBR is longer voyages where the pilot is on the bridge, often without the presence of the master.

It is my own belief that for some vessel operators, technology has become a substitute for training rather than opportunity for enhancement of ship safety and improvement of crew skills. 

Insufficient focus on human factors

I didn’t mention at the meeting, but it is disappointing that despite numerous investigations, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has not identified the underlying human factors causing most shipping incidents around our coast and in the ports. ATSB findings are incident specific without broad based recommendations for the maritime industry nor AMSA. They invariably focus on deficiencies in:

• The vessel operator’s or pilotage provider’s SMS or

• The vessel operator’s crew or pilot service provider’s pilot training

The ATSB rarely identifies human factors common to multiple investigations.

 There are some excellent marine training institutions in Australia with which AMSA could co-operate to address the human factors; for example Ravi Nijer’s Marine Consultancy Group, the IMC in Cairns or SmartShip in Brisbane.

The AMSA strategy for verification of ship safety and crew standards of the mostly foreign vessels visiting our ports is well overdue for a comprehensive review. 

What do you think? DCN invites readers' respectful feedback on this article in the interest of generating industry conversation.