INTERTANKO Technical Seminar
Mumbai 19th September 2005
Port State Control Related Issues
Capt Howard N. Snaith. Master Mariner. M.N.I.
Director, Marine, Ports, Terminals, Chemical &
Environmental
INTERTANKO Goals for PSC:
 Harmonised standards and training of inspectors
 Common, Global, Sub-Standard Targeting Systems
 Consistency regarding Clear Grounds for Detention
 Standard Global Independent Detention appeals
procedures.
 Development of rewards / incentives for the Good
Owners
 Close out of Deficiencies
Operational Issues in relation to PSC






More needs to be done to ensure harmonised standards
Greater sharing of inspection records would be beneficial
It is an imperative that the integrity of PSC is maintained
Better targeting would result from additional analysis of PSC
records
Important lessons can be learned by analysing PSC
performance
INTERTANKO is committed to working with PSC
Ideas to ensure Integrity of the
System:
 Regular and open dialogue between responsible
owners Industry associations and PSC officials
 Development of ”best practices” within PSC
regimes
 Appropriate mechansims for confidential feedback
to INTERTANKO
 Reports back to IMO of PSC performance
We have However Enjoyed some Excellent
Success to date in achieving our Goals
Paris MoU Review Board
•
•
•
•
Subsequent to INTERTANKO’s meeting with the
Paris MoU Advisory Board - during 2001
We raised our concerns regarding the lack of an
independent review process in the case where an
owner feels his vessel has been detained unjustly.
After several Trials by the Paris MoU this process
came into effect
AND has proved successful in enabling some
detention records to be cleaned
TOKYO MOU Detention Review Board
INTERTANKO and its ‘Round Table’ colleagues wrote to the Tokyo MoU
proposing that a similar, (To the Paris MoU) independent detention review board
be created within the Tokyo MoU, we are very pleased to announce that The
Tokyo MoU have now instigated such a process and issued guidelines on their
website http://www.tokyo-mou.org/ .
Whilst the findings of the Tokyo MoU Detention Review Panel are not binding,
they may provide justification for the detaining port State to amend its inspection
data already inserted in the APCIS system.
The recommendation of the Panel can not be used as a ground for claiming a
financial compensation.
But it allows for an independent vehicle for a detention review.
A full overview of the procedures are available on the Tokyo MoU web site
http://www.tokyo-mou.org/
We are very grateful to the Tokyo MoU for taking our views and proposals
onboard.
Mediterranean MoU Review Board
•Subsequent to our meeting & presentation to The
Mediterranean MoU Board, we are pleased to advise that
the Med’ MoU has indicated that it proposes to instigate an
independent detention review process (similar to that
practised by the Paris MoU).
• INTERTANKO will be invited to future meetings of the
Med MoU to continue to build up our relationship.
EQUASIS & WWW.Q88.com
• INTERTANKO has revised Questionnaire 88 to take
into account new information and regular questions
that have now become current by Brokers, based
partly on legislative changes over the years.
• INTERTANKO expects to issue further revised
editions in the future to ensure that this questionnaire
remains up-to-date and continues to be seen as an
industry standard.
Questionnaire 88 - Revised
The revised version of the Questionnaire 88 is a
culmination of suggestions from charterers,
brokers and owners who felt the original
questionnaire lacked certain essential
information relevant to today’s shipping
markets
An important aspect within the revision is a
question pertaining to CAS, (Condition
Assessment Scheme), which asks if the vessel
has a statement of compliance issued under the
provisions of the Condition Assessment
Scheme as relevant to MARPOL.
INTERTANKO believes that this will be of
immense value to port state control officers
and other industry bodies.
Links Between EQUASIS & Q88.com
Links between EQUASIS and Q88.com are now in
place.
This means that for those owners who have
completed and submitted a Questionnaire 88 form,
the Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS) information
contained within the questionnaire is now directly
available on the EQUASIS web site.
In addition, links are in place on the EQUASIS web
site that enable access to the fully completed
questionnaire 88 form via the Q88.com web site.
INTERTANKO
Standard Inspection Feedback Forms
An essential Feedback System
for Continual Improvement
Port State Control
Inspections
A Comparison between
2003 - 2004
Port State Control Inspection
Q1. Did the Inspector observe all safety precautions?
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
97
96
2003
2004
3
Yes
4
No
Port State Control Inspection
Q2. Did the inspector discuss any deficiencies?
70
59
60
56
50
40
36
35
2003
30
2004
20
8
6
10
0
Yes
No
N/A
Port State Control Inspection
Q3. Did the inspector change his opinion due to
discussions of the deficiencies?
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
62
26
60
2003
26
2004
14
12
Yes
No
N/A
Port State Control Inspection
Q4. Did the inspector leave a copy of the report
onboard?
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
64
62
38
36
2003
2004
Yes
No
Port State Control Inspection
Q5. Did the inspector make any written or verbal
observations?
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
64
62
38
36
2003
2004
Yes
No
Port State Control Inspection
Q6. Did the inspector act in an objective manner?
100
87
86
80
60
2003
40
2004
13
12
20
1
1
0
Yes
No
N/A
Port State Control Inspection
Q7. If the vessel was detained was the master
advised of his right to appeal?
100
89
86
80
60
2003
40
2004
20
6
5
8
6
0
Yes
No
N/A
Port State Control Inspection
Q8. Did any observation reflect the condition of the
vessel?
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
59
56
38
34
2003
2004
7
Yes
No
6
N/A
Port State Control Inspection
Q9. Safety/Efficiency of cargo handling operation
effected by the manner in which the inspection was
conducted?
100
77
74
80
60
40
2003
25
2004
21
20
2
1
0
Yes
No
N/A
Port State Control Inspection
Which part(s) of the Ship was focused upon:-
2003
2004
Deck
73
77
FFA
63
63
Engine
68
70
Accommodation
57
64
Certification
90
91
FFA/LSA
62
65
ESP/Class
47
50
Structural
30
31
Cargo Gear
35
35
SMS Record
58
59
LSA
65
63
Records
54
53
Bridge
74
77
Port State Control Inspection
Q10. Which part(s) of the ship was focused upon:100
90
80
70
2003
60
2004
50
40
30
20
Bridge
Records
LSA
SMS Record
Cargo Gear
Structural
ESP/Class
FFA/LSA
Certification
Accommodation
Engine
FFA
0
Deck
10
Thank You