Phase 1 vessels - oil tankers, chemical tankers,gas carriers, bulk carriers, cargo high-speedcraft and passenger vessels had to comply by 1July 1998. The remaining cargo ships andmobile offshore drilling units of 500 grosstonnage and above - the phase 2 vessels mustnow have their Documents of Compliance inthe office ashore and the individual SafetyManagement Certificates on board each shipto confirm compliance.

PSC activities - CIC

Both the Paris MOU and the Tokyo MOU havegiven notice that they will apply strictenforcement of the ISM Code from 1 Julyduring a 3 month Concentrated InspectionCampaign (CIC). They have also made it clearthat no extensions will be granted.

Whilst the CIC may be focussing on phase 2vessels - it has also been made very clear thatphase 1 vessels will be subject to theinspection campaign to verify that the safetymanagement system (SMS) is actuallyworking on board.

The Secretariat of the Paris MOU - in a notice posted on their website(http://www.parismou.org) - have advised thatPort State Control officers in the MOUcountries will be using a standard inspectionform to verify critical areas of themanagement system. Deficiencies in any ofthese areas will be considered as 'major non-conformities' which will lead to the detentionof the ship. Ships which have not beencertified will also be detained.

The Secretariat suggest that it expectsapproximately 3500 inspections will be carriedout during the CIC.

Amendments to the ISM Code

The original version of the ISM Code hasundergone some minor amendments,resolution MSC.104(73), and the amendedversion will enter into force on 1 July 2002.

The amendments mainly involve a new 'Part B'which includes an expanded section 13 andnew sections 14, 15 and 16 along with a newappendix containing model DOC and SMCcertificate forms. Well in advance of phase 1implementation IMO had issued resolutionA.788(19) - Guidelines on Implementation ofthe International Safety Management (ISM)Code by Administrations. This was an attemptto encourage national Administrations toadopt a uniform system of implementation ofthe ISM Code and the issuing of the relevant certification. Many of the importantrecommendations of that resolution have nowbeen specifically incorporated into the ISMCode itself - and consequently into Chapter IXof the SOLAS Convention.

Copies of the new version of the ISM Code aswell as the revised Guidelines onimplementation of the International SafetyManagement (ISM) Code by Administrations- Resolution A.913(22), can be obtained fromthe IMO or viewed on the IMO website -http://www.imo.org

LAN initiative

Another, related, initiative will also beimplemented on 1 July - most of the so-calledLAN initiative of Lloyds Register, ABS and

DNV. The whole of the LAN initiative is wideranging but of special relevance to this articleis that part of the LAN initiative specificallyaddressing certain criteria which will beapplied relating to ISM verification andcertification.

The three Societies had caused some concernin the industry a few months ago when theyannounced their intention to align ISM withother safety control measures by linkingissuance of SMC certificates to theclassification of the vessel.

Their belief is that the current system, whichpermits a period of up to three years betweenaudits, does not provide an effectivemechanism to monitor the management ofmaintenance on board a vessel. Theirintention is to decline to issue SMCcertificates on vessels they do not class, andnot to renew SMC certificates they may

SIGNALSthe worldwide newsletter for nepia membersIssue 48, July 2002

ww

w.n

epia

.com

INSIDE:Page 2

Lifeboataccidents

Page 3

Direct reduced Iron

Page 4

Back to BackClauses

Page 5

AutoShut-Downs

Page 6

Signage Poster

Page 7

ResidentialCourse 2002

Few people will need reminding that 1 July 2002 is the final deadline for phase 2 vessels tocomply with the requirements of the ISM Code and Chapter IX of the SOLAS Convention.

1 July - A day to celebrate?

continued on page 2...

have issued previously on vessels not in classwith the Society. There is certain flexibilitywith managed fleets.

Any Member concerned about theimplications of the LAN initiative is urged tocontact their Classification Society directly for clarification as soon as possible.

Eurasian Dream - a most timely judgement

At the time of preparing this issue of Signalsthe official publication of a judgement by theHonourable Mr. Justice Cresswell from theHigh Court in London was awaited. However,a draft copy of the judgement on the carcarrier Eurasian Dream has been reviewedand a few of the general issues can beidentified here since they will have a verysignificant bearing upon ISM implementation.

Very briefly, Eurasian Dream was dischargingmotor vehicles in Sharjah. A fire occurred inone of the vehicles which led to the vesselsbeing abandoned and destroyed by the fire.Although the vessel was an ISM phase 2 ship -the judge never the less applied the ISM codeas a 'bench mark' - particularly since the shipmanagers had put certain ISM relateddocumentation on board.

The judge was very critical of the companiesrecruitment and training practices - theMaster was not only new to the vessel, he wasalso new to car carriers and to the shipmanagement company. He had, reportedly,received no relevant training in carrying carsor in the fire fighting system on board. TheMaster had apparently been instructed to readthe 100 or so manuals on board.

The judge was highly critical of the SMSdocumentation on board - much of which wasirrelevant and inappropriate for thatparticular vessel. He was also highly critical ofthe way in which many of the SMS proceduresand requirements of the ISM Code had been implemented on board.He was also critical of manytechnical defects which hadbeen found. He found almostall the witnesses from the shipand the management companyunreliable.

In conclusion he found thatthe ship operators had failedto exercise due diligence tomake the vessel seaworthy -largely on the basis that theirISM system was utterlydeficient.

The SMS must be a dynamic living system andnot a number of paper files on a book shelf.Merely having a DOC and SMC and a set ofprocedures manuals will not be sufficient todemonstrate compliance with the ISM Code.Any ship operator who is using a generic or 'offthe shelf' ISM system must realise that theymay be running a very serious risk of beingfound in serious non-compliance with the ISMCode with such a system.

STCW reprieve - 31 July deadline

Members will no doubt be aware that as from1 February 2002 every Master and officer must

hold a valid certificate complying with theregulations of STCW 95 and endorsementissued by the flag state.

However, it became apparent in February thatmany seafarers had still not obtained thenecessary documentation. IMO therefore

asked port State control officers to refrainfrom detaining vessels who had on boardMasters and officers who had not met thedeadlines. What this meant in practice wasthat a six month amnesty or extension wasgranted. However, all the indications are thatthere will be no further periods of grace. Asfrom 31 July 2002 port State control inspectorswill be examining the certificates of Mastersand officers and if they do not comply with therequirements of STCW 95 then the ship islikely to be detained. More specific detail canbe obtained from the IMO website athttp://www.imo.org

t w o

P E R S O N A L I N J U R I E S & S T O W A W A Y S

In issue 44 of Signals, attention was drawn tothe report by the United Kingdom MarineAccident Investigation Branch (MAIB), whichhighlighted the large number of injuries anddeaths occurring during lifeboat drills.

Unfortunately the situation does not seem tohave improved in the past year as reportscontinue to be received of seafarers beinginjured or killed during what should be routinelifeboat drills. The Association has beeninformed of two recent incidents on Members'ships where seafarers were killed duringlifeboat drills. Both incidents involved the useof on-load hook release mechanisms.

The Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS)requires such on-load release hooks to befitted to lifeboats on ships built after 1 July1986. The mechanisms allow the lifeboat to bereleased from the falls automatically as theload comes off the hooks when the lifeboatfloats in the water, but also for it to be

overridden in an emergency and releasedwhile it is still on-load. The system must befitted with a suitable safety interlockmechanism to prevent accidental release.

The MAIB report makes a number ofobservations regarding the use of on-loadrelease hooks. It notes that many of the mechanisms designed by variousmanufacturers have become over-complicated.The MAIB also notes that crew generally havea poor understanding of the operatingprinciples. This may be because of poortraining, but also because of poor labelling,complex mechanisms and poor operatinginstructions in manufacturers' manuals.

The MAIB also identified that failure to re-setthe hook release mechanism correctly whenthe lifeboat is recovered following a drill means that the hook is liable tospontaneous release at any time before thelifeboat is next put in the water.

These factors all increase the risk of an

accident occurring when carrying out lifeboat

drills. The MAIB observes that without

specific training for the equipment

in use, or the provision of high quality

instruction and operational instruction

material, seafarers are unlikely to have an

adequate understanding of the designs. The

release devices also require reliable and

comprehensive maintenance and the MAIB

recommends that maintenance and servicing

should only be carried out by manufacturers

and their agents or personnel who have

undertaken manufacturers' approved courses.

Copies of the MAIB report "Safety Study 1/2001 -Review of Lifeboat and Launching Systems'Accidents" can be obtained from the Marine AccidentInvestigation Branch, Carlton House, Carlton Place,Southampton, SO15 2DZ, United Kingdom. Tel:+44 23 8039 5500, fax: +44 23 8023 2459, email:maib@detr.gsi.gov.uk,website:www.maib.detr.gov.uk

Lifeboat accidents continue to give cause for concern

continued from page 1

The Association has received an increasednumber of queries from Members concerningcargoes of direct reduced iron or its derivativesbeing offered to them under various namesand in various forms. There has been muchpublished on the dangers of carrying directreduced iron and this is an opportune time torepeat the information.

The dangers of DRI are well known in that,when moist with either sea water or, in certaincircumstances, water contaminated withatmospheric pollution, the iron heatssignificantly, breaks down the water intohydrogen and oxygen, absorbs the oxygen andgives off the hydrogen. The heat can beextreme, so that the DRI glows white hot. Ithas been known to melt through steel plate.The dangers of hydrogen in an enclosed spaceneed no explanation.

Initially, most DRI was shipped in the form ofpellets. This form was found to be most at riskof heating and methods of treating DRI weretried in order to reduce the danger.

‘Passivated’ pellets - These are ordinary DRIpellets coated with a substance which isintended to protect the iron from moisture.Producers in different countries use differentforms of coating, some of which are moreeffective and durable than others. However, nocoating renders the DRI entirely safe. Thecoating can chip off and it will break downover time.

‘Cold moulded briquettes’ - These are DRIpellets which have been compressed into theshape of a cake of soap, the intention being toreduce the accessible surface area of thepellets in order to reduce the area available forreacting with moisture. The briquettes canalso be passivated. The problem with thiscargo is that the briquettes are relativelyfragile as they are compressed when cool.They can break open during normal cargooperations which increases the amount ofsurface area available for reaction withmoisture and the cargo becomes dangerous ina similar way to pellets.

‘Hot moulded briquettes’ - These are pelletswhich have been compressed at hightemperatures as they emerge from thefurnace. As such, the briquettes are lessfragile and, therefore, less prone to breaking

up during cargo handling. They can also bepassivated. This is possibly one of the saferforms of DRI but, even so, is still prone toheating and giving off hydrogen in certainconditions.

Hot moulded briquettes are also known as Hot Briquetted Iron (HBI) and have beenreferred to as ‘Briquettes of Iron Ore’, ‘IronOre Briquettes’ and ‘DRI Briquettes’.

DRI and its derivatives can also be referred toby other names. In a recent case dealt with bythe Association, the cargo was described as

‘iron ore broken pellets’. The shipperconfirmed to the Member that the cargo wasnot dangerous and the ship accepted it on thatbasis. However, the description was misleadingas it turned out that the cargo in question wasa mixture of DRI fines and clarifier fines,described on the bill of lading as ‘iron oxidefines’. The cargo oxidised during the voyageand an explosion occurred, caused by thehydrogen it released, which killed two seamen,seriously injured another and causedsignificant damage to the ship.

We are also advised that there is a producer inSouth America which is offering ‘DRI fines’ forshipment. This is the raw product of thereducing process before pelletisation. As acargo, this is possibly more dangerous thanDRI pellets.

The International Group, has issued variouscirculars about DRI in the past, all of whichare available on the Associations website.Experts advise that the safest way to carryDRI and its derivatives is under an inertnitrogen atmosphere which has been pumped

into the stow from the bottom in order to fullyexpel the air. The present IMDG Code entryfor DRI and its derivatives has furtherrecommendations which should be regardedas an absolute minimum and followed verycarefully.

t h r e e

C A R G O

Direct reduced iron and derivatives

f o u r

L E G A L L Y S P E A K I N G

As any Member who charters vessels knows, itis important to fix both the head and sub-charterers on back to back terms. This isparticularly important when choosing thegoverning law to be applied to thecharterparties. It is important to make bothcharters subject to the same law, eitherEnglish or US for example, to avoid the risk ofdifferent results which can result fromdifferent jurisdiction's interpretation of thesame clauses.

An example of the difference between US andEnglish interpretation of charterparty clausesis in the area of the warranty of safe berth orport. Under English law, a warranty of safeberth or port is treated as a warranty whichplaces strict liability on the charterer if it isfound that the berth or port was unsafe.Whether the charterer knew, should haveknown, or could not have known that the berthwas unsafe, for example, is irrelevant to thecharterer's liability. However, in the US thewarranty is not interpreted in the samemanner, nor is it interpreted the samethroughout all US Courts. In certain parts ofthe United States (for instance New Orleansor US Gulf Coast area) governing legalprecedent does not treat the warranty of safeberth as a warranty but instead only requiresthe charterer to exercise due diligence innominating a safe berth or port. Consequently,

a charterer may not be liable for breach of thewarranty if it is found that the charterer couldnot have known, by exercising due diligence orreasonable care, of the unsafe condition. Thisresult is contrary to English law which couldstill hold the charterer liable. On the otherhand, New York arbitrations, have interpretedthe warranty of safe berth or port the same asEnglish governing precedent: that is bytreating it as a warranty with its strict liabilityon charterers.

Therefore, it is possible for a Member whocharters a vessel from an owner under acharterparty that is subject to English law, andthen sub-charters the vessel under acharterparty that is subject to US law, to findthemselves liable for a claim for unsafe berthfrom the head owner, while being unable topass that claim on to the sub-chartererbecause of the difference in the US andEnglish interpretation of the clause. In orderto avoid inconsistent results from the samefacts, it is important to use the samegoverning law in the two charters. If Membersare contemplating entering into a sub-charter,for example, which proposes a differentgoverning law than that in the head charterwith owners, they may wish to contact theAssociation for advice on the effect thedifferent law may have on their rights orobligations.

Importance of back toback clauses

Arbitration clauses- be precise!Most widely used charterparties these daysalready contain a suitable arbitration clause.There are however still some forms in currentuse that do not contain an arbitration clause,such as the 1976 GENCON form. There mayalso be practical or commercial reasons why itmay be felt desirable to amend or replace astandard arbitration clause in a charterparty.

Where a form is used that does not alreadycontain an arbitration clause it is extremelyimportant that a clause should be added to thecharterparty. Failure to do so will mean thatthere is no agreement to arbitrate and it maythen be possible to pursue the other party onlyin their national courts, which, in thecircumstances, may not be a desirableprospect. However, where, a clause is added, or a standard clause is amended or replaced, it is important that the new clause be properly worded.

In particular there are two points on whichprecision is required. Firstly the clause needsto make clear what the constitution of thearbitration tribunal is to be. How manyarbitrators are to be appointed? Secondly, itmay need to set out how the tribunal is to becompleted if one of the parties refuses tocooperate and appoint their own arbitrator. Inthe case of arbitration clauses that call foreither two or three arbitrators, and which aresubject to English law, the law alreadyprovides a procedure. It is more important toinclude something if the clause provides for asole arbitrator. If the clause requires the solearbitrator and the parties cannot agreeEnglish law says that it is necessary for one ofthe parties, usually the claimant, to apply tothe High Court in London for an orderappointing an arbitrator on behalf of bothparties. This can obviously be an expensiveand time consuming exercise, particularly where the other party is not based in theUnited Kingdom. It is therefore useful, toinclude an easier mechanism for establishingthe arbitration tribunal, for example by sayingthat in the absence of agreement each party isto appoint their own arbitrator.

Members would also be well advised to avoidsuch simple arbitration clauses as, forexample, 'arbitration in London, English lawto apply'. This sort of clause does not indicatehow many arbitrators are to be appointed.English law therefore says that this is anagreement that a sole arbitrator is to beappointed. If agreement cannot be reached onthe identity of that arbitrator an applicationwould have to be made to the High Court.

If Members require specific guidance on thesuitability of particular arbitration clausesthey should contact the Association's FD&Ddepartment.

The Association has recently been involved intwo incidents where repairs have been carriedout to the ship's main engine apparentlywithout the Classification Society beingadvised. In both cases the repairs were as aresult of damage to the engine, rather thannormal wear and tear.

In general, Class should be kept fully andpromptly informed of all damage, failure,deterioration or repairs to hull, machinery andequipment which affects or may affect theclassification of the vessel. Failure to do somay result in the suspension of theclassification of the vessel.

The Association's Rule 29 covers Classificationand Statutory Requirements and requires aMember to promptly report to theirClassification Society any incident orcondition in respect of which it might makerecommendations as to repairs or otheractions to be taken by the Member. It is crucial

that Members ensure that their ships remainclassed with a classification society approvedby the Association's managers. To ensure thatP&I cover is not affected, Members must also promptly inform the managers of anychanges in classification society and advisethem of all outstanding recommendations,requirements or restrictions relating to thatship at the date of such change.

Section 10 of the ISM Code deals with'Maintenance of the Ship and Equipment'. At10.1 it states: '...The Company shouldestablish procedures to ensure that the ship ismaintained in conformity with the provisionsof the relevant rules and regulations...'.Accordingly, failure to notify Class may resultin a serious 'non conformity' under ISM.

Members requiring further information aboutthe effect of changes to classification on P&Icover should contact the underwriting orsurvey department at the Association.

Notifying Class

The New South Wales Government announcedplans to increase the maximum pollution fineto A$10,000,000 for corporations andA$500,000 for individuals. Our Sydneycorrespondents Ebsworth & Ebsworth haveissued an alert on this matter advising that notonly were the proposed fines increasing by 10

fold but that the proposed legislation wouldremove any possibility of the wear and teardefence currently available to owners. Atpresent if it can be proved that oil escapedfrom the ship in consequence of damage, otherthan intentional damage to the ship or itsequipment and all reasonable precautionswere taken after the occurrence of the damageor the discovery of the discharge for thepurpose of preventing or minimising theescape of oil, then owners have a viabledefence.

The NSW Government is closing this possibledefence to ensure that vessels entering theirwaters are properly maintained. It should benoted that the government has responsibilityfor NSW waters, including up to 3 miles out to sea and for Sydney Harbour and other waterways within the state. Ebsworth & Ebsworth also advise that whilst the massiveincreases appear hard to justify it is unlikelythere will be any substantial opposition to thelegislation in the NSW Parliament at a date tobe announced. Owners should, as at present,continue to pay attention to any operationswhich could give rise to an oil spill, inparticular bunkering and internal oil transferoperations.

The Association will continue to monitor thesituation and keep Members advised ofdevelopments.

NSWGovernmentplans increaseto marine oilspill fines

f i v e

L O S S P R E V E N T I O N

The Marine Accident Investigation Branchhas just published its report into thegrounding of the "FINREEL" off Rauma inMarch 2001.

The "FINREEL" was outward bound underpilotage in the channel at about 12 knotswhen the main engine oil mist detector alarmwas activated. This lead to the immediateshutdown of the main engine and to thetripping of the shaft generator whichprevented the use of the fore and aft thrusters.

The shutdown of the main engine was notnoticed on the bridge because the ship isnormally vibration free and the warning lightdid not operate.

On the bridge the helmsman noticed that theship was swinging to starboard and the helmhad no effect. The Master who had just seenthe alarm that the thrusters had tripped,immediately adjusted the propeller pitch toslow and then full astern. This had no effect

and the ship continued to sheer to starboardand grounded.

The MAIB concluded that the sheer wascaused by "bank" effect enhanced by "shallowwater" effect and squat.

The reason why the oil mist detector alarmwas triggered was never positively identified.The "FINREEL" has been modified so thatactivation of the oil mist detector alarm infuture will lead to an immediate pitchreduction rather than an automatic mainengine shutdown.

The MAIB concluded that the action of thoseon the bridge and engine room wereappropriate and there was little more whichcould have been done to prevent thegrounding.

The full report can be found athttp://www.maib.dtlr.gov.uk/reports/reports-2002.htm

Auto shut-downs

“The Roman Emperor’s new edict on over-manning was not popular with the galley crews”.

12

s i x

L O S S P R E V E N T I O N

New signage poster series

Salvage seminarRule 17 - Action by thestand-on vessel

A short series of posters is being launched bythe Association to provide information aboutvarious types of signs and symbols.

The first poster, which accompanies this issueof Signals, illustrates the use of prohibitionsigns. These are probably the most recognisedsigns with their familiar red circle on a whitebackground and a red diagonal bar passingacross an illustration of the action or operationthat is prohibited. Future posters will

illustrate warning and mandatory signs as wellas other types of permanent signs regularlyfound on board ship.

Later this year the Association will bepublishing a video that can be used on boardship to provide familiarisation training aboutsigns, symbols and alarm signals. The trainingmodule will also be available in CD format torun on a personal computer. The video or CDwill be made available to all Members andentered ships.

This years Mariner and the Maritime Lawseminar will focus on a subject which alwaysevokes considerable interest - Salvage. Abrochure and registration form accompanythis issue of Signals and early registration is strongly recommended to avoiddisappointment.

The Association is again pleased to act as amajor sponsor of this Nautical Instituteannual event which is now in its 13th year.This year will see a significant change in thestructure of the event. The seminar will in facttake place on board the DFDS Seawayspassenger ship m.s. Queen of Scandinaviawhere many eminent speakers will presenttopical papers. Delegates will board in theRiver Tyne on Friday 11 October, sail on thevessel to Amsterdam (Ijmuiden) and return tothe Tyne for Sunday 13 October. There will beopportunities for delegates to relax in betweenthe seminar sessions.

Delegate places are strictly limited and it isanticipated that the seminar will fill up veryquickly - so don't delay submitting yourregistration.

Quite surprisingly we find the advicecontained in the rules concerning the action ofthe stand-on vessel to be far more detailedthan that for the give-way vessel.

How can that be, surely all the stand-on vesselhas to do is maintain her course and speeduntil the risk of a collision has passed?

In a perfect world that may be the case,unfortunately the navigational world as weknow it is far from perfect. The officerstanding on the bridge of the stand-on vesselwould be foolish to assume the give-way vesselwould act in accordance with the rules on eachand every occasion. All too often theAssociation is seeing collision cases whicharise out if the inaction of one or both vesselswhen a close quarters/collision situation isdeveloping.

The most difficult decision to be made by theofficer of the stand-on vessel is when he musttake avoiding action in accordance with Rule17 in order to avoid a collision.

Two options are available to him, Rule17(a)(ii) advises the officer of the stand-onvessel that he is permitted to take avoidingaction by his manoeuvre alone, when itbecomes apparent that the give-way vessel isfailing to take avoiding action in accordancewith the Rules. At what point in time thissituation arises is down to the judgement ofthe ship's officer, however, it is assumed thatall necessary attempts will have been made toalert the give-way vessel of his concerns, by useof the light and sound signals detailed in Rule34(d) of the COLREGS. The only restrictionplaced on such a manoeuvre is therecommendation that an alteration to port fora vessel on his own port side should, if possible,be avoided.

It should also be noted that action permittedby Rule 17(a)(ii) is not prescriptive and isavailable to the officer of the stand-on vessel ifhe deems it necessary. However, goodseamanship would suggest that failure to takesuch action might stand his vessel into danger.

The second option available to the officer onthe stand-on vessel, arises in extremis, at thatpoint when it becomes apparent that acollision cannot be avoided by the action of thegive-way vessel alone. Any action taken by theofficer or Master of the stand-on vessel toavoid a collision at this point will rarely becriticised as it is taken in the 'agony of themoment' and is often a desperate measure toavoid a collision. Obviously it is preferable thatsuch a situation is not allowed to arise byeither vessel in a crossing situation.

The Association was delighted to sponsor amajor seminar in Mumbai - organised by theNautical Institute - India (West) branch. Theevent was held on 19 April at the Taj PresidentHotel attracting nearly 150 delegates withmany distinguished guests. Ministry ofShipping Secretary M.P. Pinto honoured theoccasion as Chief Guest and Director Generalof Shipping, D.T. Joseph, presided over theevent. The local Institute Chairman, CaptainSubramanian, also chaired one of the sessions.

The seminar focused on the idea of LossPrevention being the hub of ISM. TheAssociations loss prevention manager, PhilAnderson, provided feedback from the privateresearch he had conducted into ISMimplementation. This was followed by CaptainSavraj Mehta who explored various statisticaldata to determine whether there was yet anyevidence about the beneficial effect of ISM.

A very interesting paper considering whatlessons have been learnt following phase oneimplementation was presented by Mr R.CBhavnani - local manager of the AmericanBureau of Shipping. A very topical andemotive issue was addressed by Captain FazPeer Mohamed - a Partner with the LondonSolicitors Ince and Co. - who provided anoverview of the 'Criminalisation of the

Master'. Finally a senior maritime lecturer,Captain S.G. Deshpande provided a moststimulating insight into the area of 'Trainingto manage safety'.*

Secretary of Shipping, Mr Pinto, also verykindly launched a new book which had justbeen published by North of England - 'ASeafarers Guide to ISM'.**

* The text of the speakers papers, where available, can be found on the Associations website -http://www.nepia.com in Loss Prevention - Educationand Training - Review of Recent Events.

**Copies of 'A Seafarers Guide to ISM' and itsaccompanying volume 'What have the World Cup andISM got in common?' are available from the LossPrevention Department of the Association.

s e v e n

L O S S P R E V E N T I O N

Several staff from the Association had anenjoyable visit to Iran in April and provided anumber of seminars at the Islamic Republic ofIran Shipping Lines' (IRISL) training institutein Tehran.

Each of the four one-day seminars examinedparticular aspects of cargo claims, collisionclaims or legal costs insurance and wasattended by delegates from other Iranianshipping companies as well as from thedifferent departments of IRISL. On one of thedays, the delegates were a group of servingmasters from the IRISL fleet. The deliberatelysmall group sizes enabled a useful, and oftenlively, exchange of ideas during thepresentations and the accompanying practicalworkshop sessions.

The mix of staff from the claims, lossprevention and FD&D departments of theAssociation allowed the various commercial,insurance and loss prevention aspects of eachtopic to be discussed in detail.

Further seminars are planned in the future aspart of the Association's commitment totraining in Iran.

An influential gathering of industry andgovernment figures participated in a majortwo day seminar examining ISMimplementation post phase one andconsidered the position in the lead up to thefinal deadline for phase two implementationon 1st July this year. The event had beenorganised by the Institute of MarineEngineering, Science and Technology and theUK Government - Maritime and CoastguardAgency.

The event was opened by the UK shippingminister, David Jamieson, who set the scene by stressing that an important element in the concept was about changing attitudes withthe ISM Code being one of the principal toolsfor eliminating substandard shipping andinstilling a safety culture.

The Associations head of loss prevention, PhilAnderson, had been involved on the seminarorganising panel as well as presenting a papersetting out some of the more significantfindings and conclusions from his major studyinto ISM implementation which he has beenundertaking in a private capacity.

This years annual Residential Training Course in P&I Insurance and Loss Preventionwas again full to capacity in all three parts with delegates coming from twelve different countries. Many of the delegates had registered as a result of personalrecommendations from delegates fromprevious years.

Those who attended all three parts of thecourse found themselves moving between theclass room and the deck of a ship loading steel.Between the bridge of a working Ro-Ro vessel

to reviewing the manning levels on board shipstoday. From interactive workshop sessions inthe state rooms of a medieval castle to a stateof the art full bridge simulator at SouthTyneside College. A very intense seven days oflectures and workshops were interspersed withopportunities to relax on board a sail trainingvessel cruising down the River Tyne and anElizabethan Banquet in the Barons Hall ofLumley Castle.

Feedback from the delegates indicated that avery enjoyable and useful time was had by all!

High profile seminar in India

Residential Course 2002Iranian seminar

ISM seminar

e i g h t

Q U I Z

•In this publication all references to the masculine gender are for convenience only and are also intended as a reference to the female gender. Unless the contrary is indicated, all articles are written with reference to English Law. However it should be noted that the content of this publication does not constitute legal advice and should not be construed as such. Members with appropriate cover should contact theAssociation’s FD&D dept. for legal advice on particular matters. •The purpose of the Association’s loss prevention facility is to provide a source of information which is additional to that available to the maritime industry from regulatory, advisory, and consultative organisations. Whilst care is taken to ensure the accuracy of any informationmade available (whether orally or in writing and whether in the nature of guidance, advice, or direction) no warranty of accuracy is given and users of that information are expected to satisfy themselves that the information is relevant and suitable for the purposes to which it is applied. In no circumstances whatsoever shall the Association be liable to any person whatsoever for any loss or damage whensoever orhowsoever arising out of or in connection with the supply (including negligent supply) or use of information (as described above).

‘Signals’ is published by North ofEngland P&I Association Limited The Quayside Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 3DU UK Tel: +44 (0) 191 232 5221Fax: +44 (0)191 261 0540 Telex: NEPIA G 53634/537316 Email: loss.prevention@nepia.comWebsite: www.nepia.com

"The first mate was found to be drunk one day and that

day it happened to be the captain's turn to write

in the ship's log so he wrote:

"The first mate was drunk today."

He begged andpleaded to the

captain to removethat entry but the

captain argued thatonce an entry was madein the company's log it couldn't bedeleted. The firstmate decided to geteven. The next timeit was the first mate'sturn to write in the log,he wrote:

"The captain wassober today."

Mr Chris Bravery - Ropner Ship Management Ltd

Runners-upMiss Dorcas Goh - Glory Ship Management

Mr JR Ward - Stirling Ship Management

Mr Simon Milne - Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Captain Y Nazarov - PANDI Services East

Captain A Bischiniotis

well done!!!!!!

Signals swot 12 Quiz Winner

3

4

5

1

2

6

7

8

9

10

Good luck to all you Signals Swotters!!

What is initially required ofthe stand-on vessel underRule 17?

Make a broad and substantialalteration of course to starboard...................................

Make a substantial alteration of course to port.........................

Maintain her course and speed.....

Where will this yearsMariner and Maritime Lawseminar be held?

Marriott Gosforth ParkHotel.........................................

Lumley Castle...........................

Queen of Scandinavia...............

Who is invoking a 3 monthCIC on ISM from 1 July?

Paris MOU..............................

IMO.........................................

NEPIA....................................

When will the ‘period ofgrace’ expire for full STCW 95 compliance?

1 July 2002..............................

31 July 2002............................

1 February 2003.......................

According to English Lawhow many arbitrators would be appointedpursuant to the followingcharterparty clause‘Arbitration in London,English Law to apply’?

One...........................................

Two...........................................

Three.........................................

What category of sign isbeing described here ‘A redcircle on a white backgroundwith a red diagonal barpassing across anillustration’?

Warning sign...........................

Prohibition sign.......................

Information sign......................

What is the new upper limitof a pollution fine against an individual in NSW?

A$ 500,000.............................

A$ 1,000,000..........................

A$ 10,000,000........................

Which of the following isunlikely to be an ISM phase2 vessel?

Container ship.........................

Refrigerated cargo ship.............

Gas carrier................................

Which of the following willmost likely lead to thegreatest problem if charters are not on a back-to-back basis?

Different legal interpretation......

Different charter hire rates.........

Different commencement dates....

What is the subject ofSection 10 of the ISM code?

Development of plans forshipboard operations..................

Emergency preparedness.............

Maintenance of the ship andequipment.................................

Signals Swot QuizWelcome to Signals Swot number 13. We inviteyou to pit your wits against "Bosun Bo" andbecome a Signals Swotter!

This is not a general knowledge quiz but ratherthe answers to all the questions are to be foundwithin this particular issue of Signals.

• The quiz is open to all readers of Signals.

• The quiz comprises 10 multiple choice questions - simply tick the correct answer √

• Send a photocopy of your answers, alongwith your name and, if appropriate, name ofship, position on board, company and address to the Editor of Signals at the Association.

• All correct entries received by the closing date will be entered in a prize draw.

• Closing date 14 September 2002.

PRIZES!The first correct entry drawn will receive a'Winners Plate' along with a limited editionstatuette of our quiz master "Bosun Bo". Thenext 5 correct entries drawn will each receive astatuette.

Details of the winner and runners-up willappear in the following edition of Signals.

signalsswot

13

The lighter side of marine incidents...