As part of its series on maritime casualties related to ISM non-conformities, SAFETY4SEA focuses today on the sinking of the Anchor Handling Tug ‘Bourbon Dolphin’, which led to eight fatalities. In opposition to ISM Code, the operating company had not examined whether the vessel was suitable for the operation.
Several maritime casualties have been attributed to ISM-associated issues. SAFETY4SEA chose to focus today on the grounding of the general cargo ship ‘Harvest Caroline’ which constitutes an interesting case study of how inconsistent implementation of ISM can lead to unpleasant situations.
Industry insiders are for many years now, pinpointing the urgent need for seafarers to be trained as human beings and the importance of considering the underlying factors behind accidents too and it seems that in that way, we have been better thinkers. How, therefore, has the so-called human factor been considered as a symptom and not as a cause with the passage of time?
Master is the key person to ensure the effective implementation of the ISM Code on board and thus, as a top priority, he needs to be familiar with company’s SMS. In particular, clause 5 of the ISM Code defines Master’s requirements and expectations; as such, among its main duties, Master is assigned with the obligation to review and verify the Safety Management System of the Company (as per ISM Code Clause 5, para. 5.1.5).
It has been 13 years, since the RoRo ‘Cougar Ace’ was involved in an incident that caused its entire cargo of almost 5,000 brand new cars to be scrapped. The incident highlighted issues related to the assignment of duties in a ship’s SMS, within the context of ballast water exchange operations.
A total of 934 ships registered under 63 flags were detained due to serious deficiencies onboard in the Tokyo MoU region in 2018, according to Tokyo MoU annual report on PSC. The number of detentions, the detention rate and number of under-performing ships continued to decrease in 2018. ISM remained prevalent cause of detention.
During the 2019 SAFETY4SEA London Forum, Captain Mark Bull, Principal, Trafalgar Navigation, noted that as an industry, when it comes to navigation safety there is no industry wide leading indicator system; Surprisingly, the ISM Code does not even mention navigation.
This article attempts to clarify the difference between terms Observation, Non-conformity or Major Non-conformity, as defined by ISM Code, and explain with an example how to handle effectively any ‘non-fulfilled’ requirement that has been found onboard and may pose risks to safe operations.
The purpose of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code is to provide an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and for pollution prevention. The ISM Code in its mandatory form was adopted in 1993 by resolution A.741(18) and entered into force on 1 July 1998.
As the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency proceeded to seize Tecoil Polaris, the master of the small product tanker Tecoil Polaris, Vitaliy Trofimov, was found guilty and was ordered to pay an overdue $34,000 fine for major ISM code violations.
Trafigura proposes carbon levy on shipping fuels25/09/2020
Spain must recover illegal state aid for ships built in domestic shipyards, EU court says25/09/2020
- Maritime Health
Update Sept: Live map depicts spread of coronavirus25/09/2020
New Zealand: Update on COVID-19 restrictions25/09/2020
Brazil updates berthing and mooring rules25/09/2020
Owner of New Diamond to pay $1.8 million for Sri Lanka’s help25/09/2020
World's largest LNG container ship named ''CMA CGM Jacques Saade''25/09/2020
IMarEST issues guide on scrubber challenges25/09/2020
450 coronavirus positive seafarers, quarantined onboard for weeks25/09/2020
First lock gate for the new IJmuiden sea lock at Port of Amsterdam installed25/09/2020