During the 2024 SAFETY4SEA Manila Forum, Dimitris Psarros, Business Development Manager at RISK4SEA, delivered a focused presentation on the role of human factors in PSC (Port State Control) performance.
PSC data reveals that by failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail
It’s clear that vessels often aren’t adequately prepared, leading to issues and detentions that can have ripple effects across various sectors of your business. Unfortunately, it is common for the industry to put too much pressure on seafarers, expecting them to be superheroes rather than human. However, instead of expecting them to be superheroes, assistance and mindset change are necessary for the preparation of vessels for the next (PSC inspection.
Based on data from the RISK4SEA online PSC data intelligence platform, every 36 months, 5,000 ships are detained. While this number is significant, what stands out more is that 85% of these vessels had no other issues during that period. Some market insiders believe that the detained ships are inherently substandard, which we disagree with. We assert that these vessels are often just unprepared for inspections.
Minimizing unpredictability to ensure compliance
The unpredictability of port state control inspections presents a significant challenge for maritime operations worldwide. Despite existing parameters such as inspection windows and vessel priority status, these are often insufficient to guarantee immunity from inspections. Key reasons why vessels fail to comply include:
#1 No specific focus knowledge
Instances have been noted where vessels are inspected even after their inspection window has closed, exacerbating the challenge. Compounding this issue is the lack of awareness among crews regarding the specific focus items at different ports.
#2 Generic checklists
This lack of clarity renders generic checklists ineffective, while communication gaps between vessels and shore offices further hinder effective preparation.
#3 Miscommunication
Oftentimes, the office does not adequately or timely inform the vessel, so what needs to be done for it to be prepared for its next port of call?
Reducing noise and providing tailored solutions
In any case, the primary objective remains the prevention of detentions, alongside the critical goal of minimizing deficiencies. Addressing these issues also includes reducing informational “noise” from excessive emails and ensuring that vessels receive relevant information. This approach aims to streamline preparation checklists with specific items and improve readiness for port state control inspections.
Additionally, the various approaches used in roughly 1,500 ports across 25 countries increase the complexity of port state control inspections. Varying languages and local practices further contribute to the challenge. For instance, the inspection procedures in Ravenna differ significantly from those in ports like Antwerp, Piraeus, Tokyo, and the numerous stations in the United States and Australia. Each region operates under distinct regional standards and preferences, adding layers of complexity to compliance efforts.
As mentioned, to effectively prepare vessels for inspections, tailored guidance and specific information are essential. Understanding the specific detainable deficiencies prioritized by each port can significantly enhance compliance efforts, thereby reducing the risk of detentions and operational disruptions.
Navigating the unpredictability and diversity of port state control inspections requires an approach that integrates tailored guidance, clear communication, and proactive preparation strategies.
Detailed deficiency profiles: A case study
A case study in Antwerp (coded as BNAR by the UN) demonstrates how comprehensive deficiency profiles offer crucial insights into maritime operations.
The data shows some interesting patterns. When ISM items are taken out of the picture, the most common detainable deficiency in Antwerp is with seafarer employment agreements. This is followed by differences in ballast water books.
Such detailed profiles are invaluable for understanding operational risks. Over the past 36 months, the port’s detention rate has averaged around 15%. This rate varies across vessel types, with tankers at 4.8%, container ships at 7.7%, and an average of close to 7% across all ships.
Also within Antwerp, recent records indicate 97 detainable deficiency codes over the last six months: 61 for dry bulk carriers, 81 for container ships, and 156 across all vessel types.
These unique, detainable deficiencies once again highlight the limitations of generic checklists. Tailored, specific checklists are essential for effective compliance. For example, different vessel types like Panamax or Supramax face distinct challenges depending on the port, necessitating customized guidance.
In another case study on a container operating company, we examined detainable deficiency codes and selected ports that had undergone 100 or more inspections over the past three years. We identified 59 different codes and applied a common checklist that includes the top 20 detainable items globally. We analyzed these items to determine the actual detainable deficiencies at each port.
The analysis revealed significant differences between the top detainable items for containerships compared to all ships. For instance, containerships face different issues compared to bulk carriers and LPG carriers, highlighting the need for detailed, vessel-specific analyses.
Our case study also revealed significant variations in how each port prioritizes inspection areas, with detainable deficiencies differing greatly, further highlighting the need for tailored, specific checklists to ensure effective compliance.
Understanding specific challenges
In conclusion, improper preparation will likely lead to detentions. Problems arise mainly because we do not adequately help crew members on board the vessels understand what they need to check. Instead, we often ask them to simply send back items for filing, which is insufficient.
It is crucial to know exactly what is happening in each port and understand what Port State Control inspectors are looking for. A generic checklist is not in any case enough to ensure compliance with PSC inspections.
Above article has been edited from Mr. Psarros’ presentation during the 2024 SAFETY4SEA Manila Forum.
Explore more by watching his video presentation here below
The views presented are only those of the author, do not necessarily reflect those of SAFETY4SEA, and are for information sharing and discussion purposes only.
