ferries, ism, sms and designated person ashore

8/9/2019 Ferries, ISM, SMS and Designated Person Ashore

1/25

1

International Safety Management (ISM) Code

Notice to Shipowners, Ship Operators, Charterers and Managers; Ships Masters,Ships Officers and Seamen.

This Note supersedes M1353, M1424 and M1616.

MARINE GUIDANCE NOTE

MGN 40 (M)

Summary

This note informs ship operators and crews about the ISM Code.

Key Points:

Introduction of new Merchant Shipping Regulations. Brief introduction to the ISM Code. Ships to which the Code applies and the applicable dates. Voluntary Certification scheme. Advice and useful references.

INTRODUCTION

1. The purpose of this Marine Guidance Noteis to introduce the proposed MerchantShipping Regulations, give a briefintroduction to the ISM Code, explain towhich vessels it will apply and the date bywhich, according to vessel type, the Codebecomes mandatory. This note also sets outthe Maritime and Coastguard Agencysvoluntary certification scheme and givesadvice and some useful references on goodship management practice.

2. The International Management Code for theSafe Operation of Ships and for PollutionPrevention (ISM Code) was mademandatory in 1994 by the adoption ofChapter IX to SOLAS

1

74, which will beimplemented in UK law by the proposedMerchant Shipping (International Safety

Management (ISM) Code) Regulations 1998which are due to come into force on 1 July1998. A copy of the annex to IMO ResolutionA.741(18), which constitutes the ISM Code,is reproduced as Annex 1 to this Note.

3. Merchant shipping operations are inherentlycomplex and governed by national andinternational rules and conventions largelyaddressing technical aspects. This technicalcontrol can achieve only part of theobjectives of safe and pollution free shipoperations. The Master is clearly responsiblefor the safety of the ship and its crew but theoverall responsibility for the administrationand safe operation rests with the companyor person(s) owning or managing the ship.

4. It is widely accepted that the vast majorityof shipping accidents are attributable tohuman error and it is generally agreed thatthe human element plays some part in

virtually all accidents. Therefore the taskfacing all ship operating companies is to

1

SOLAS: International Convention for the Safetyof Life at Sea, 1974.


2/25


3/25

3

verification and certificate renewal. The useof independent organisations to guide andassist in the setting up of SafetyManagement Systems is encouraged but thechoice of such organisations is a companydecision.

VOLUNTARY IMPLEMENTATION

13. Chapter IX of SOLAS 74, which makes theISM Code mandatory, applies to cargo shipsof 500 GT and over and thus excludes asignificant number of ships of less than500 GT from the application of that chapter.It is recognised that there is a need for theproper organisation of management toachieve and maintain high standards ofsafety and environmental protection by allthose involved in the operation of ships,

even if less than 500 GT. Therefore, the UKstrongly urges companies operating ships ofbetween 150 GT and 500 GT to comply withthe requirements of the ISM Code and toapply for certification voluntarily.

CERTIFICATION

14. The application of the Code will lead to theissue of two statutory certificates which will be subject to Port State Control inspectionsunder regulation XI/4 of SOLAS 74. Vessels

without the required certificates are liable to be detained and at least within Europe(Paris MOU region) may be banned from re-entry until compliance has been adequatelydemonstrated. The two certificates, whichfor the purposes of port state control aretreated as certificates issued underregulation I/12 or I/13 of SOLAS, are theDocument of Compliance (DOC) and theSafety Management Certificate (SMC).

15. The Document of Compliance (DOC)

15.1 The DOC will be issued to thecompany following a successful auditof the shore side aspects of the SafetyManagement System. The audit willrequire objective evidence todemonstrate that the system has beenin operation for a minimum of threemonths

3

in addition to similar evidenceof operation on at least one ship ofeach type in the company fleet.

The DOC will be specific to ship type(s)at the time of the audit, valid for amaximum of five years and subject toannual verification ( 3 months of theanniversary date).

15.2 An interim DOC (valid for a maximumof 12 months) may be issued tofacilitate initial implementation of theISM Code where a company is newlyestablished or where new ship typesare added to an existing DOC. Theinterim DOC will only be issuedfollowing a demonstration from theCompany that it has a SMS that meetsthe objectives of 1.2.3 of the ISM Code.The Company must demonstrate plansto implement a SMS meeting the fullrequirements of the Code.

16. The Safety Management Certificate (SMC)

16.1 The SMC will be issued to eachindividual ship after an on board auditof the SMS. Objective evidence will berequired to demonstrate that the SMShas been in operation on board the shipfor a minimum of three months

3

beforethe audit. The company must be inpossession of a valid DOC, a certifiedtrue copy of which must be on board

the ships. The SMC will be valid for amaximum of five years and will besubject to one intermediate verification between the second and thirdanniversaries, with the proviso thatmore frequent audits, if deemednecessary by the MCA, may be carriedout. This is considered more likely inthe early days of ISM Codeimplementation.

16.2 An interim SMC, valid for not morethan six months, may be issued to new

ships on delivery and when a companytakes on the responsibility for themanagement of a ship which is new tothe company.

APPLICATION

17. The MCA will, in general, deal with requestsfor verification in order of application.

18. For those ships not legally required tocomply with the Code, voluntary

certification is strongly urged, but priority3 The qualifying periods can be concurrent.


4/25

4

will be given to those companies wherecompliance is mandatory.

19. Applications received late may not be dealtwith in time for the relevant Certificates to be issued. Applications received well inadvance of the required dates (e.g. anapplication for compliance not requiredbefore 2002) will not be refused but prioritymay need to be given to those with the moreurgent need.

20. AUDIT - APPLICATION AND CONDUCT

Applications may be made as follows:

.1 For the DOC - by letter to the MCA atthe following address:

The Audit Section, MSAS(D)Maritime and Coastguard AgencySpring Place105 Commercial RoadSOUTHAMPTONSO15 1EGTel: 01703 329202

The Audit Section will respond and requesta Document review either on site or bydespatch of Documents to the MCA Wherethe Document review is carried out is

generally a company choice. An audit planand timetable will be agreed. The companywill then be audited and, dependent on theresult, a Document of Compliance issued.

.2 For the SMC - for audit of individualships to the relevant Marine Office ofthe MCA.

21. The audit and inspection will be conductedin accordance with MCA Instructions toSurveyors which are under development atthe present time and in cognisance of IMOGuidelines. In certain instances, where forexample a vessel rarely calls at a UK port,the MCA may appoint a Surveyor to act onits behalf. Such arrangements will beconducted in accordance with currentpractice.

22. Multi-Flag Fleets: For UK flagged shipsoperated by companies whose DOC hasbeen issued by or on behalf of another flagAdministration, companies are requested to

follow the Guidance given in the Annex toIMO MSC/Circular 762, attached at Annex 3to this Note. Paragraph 5 is particularlyworthy of note as it states companies shouldapproach the relevant flag Administrations,proposing a plan of action and requestingagreement by all parties.

FEES

23. The fees charged for audit against the ISMCode will be based on the time taken by

surveyors to complete all aspects of the workat the hourly fee rate current at the time.

MSAS(D)Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Spring Place105 Commercial RoadSouthamptonSO15 1 EG

Tel: 01703 329202Fax: 01703 329379

April 1998

MS 166/2/5

Crown Copyright 1998

An executive agency of the Department of the

Enviroment, Transport and the Regions


5/25

5

ANNEX 1: ISM CODE

Annex to IMO Resolution A.741(18)Adopted on 4 November 1993

INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CODE FOR THE SAFEOPERATION OF SHIPS AND FOR POLLUTION PREVENTION

(INTERNATIONAL SAFETY MANAGEMENT (ISM) CODE)

SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS

CONTENTS

Preamble

1 General

1.1 Definitions

1.2 Objectives

1.3 Application

1.4 Functional requirements for a safety management system (SMS)

2 Safety and environmental protection policy

3 Company responsibilities and authority

4 Designated person(s)

5 Masters responsibility and authority

6 Resources and personnel

7 Development of plans for shipboard operations

8 Emergency preparedness

9 Reports and analysis of non-conformities, accidents and hazardous occurrences

10 Maintenance of the ship and equipment

11 Documentation

12 Company verification, review and evaluation

13 Certification, verification and control


6/25


7/25

7

1.3 Application

The requirements of this Code may beapplied to all ships.

1.4 Functional requirements for a SafetyManagement System (SMS)

Every Company should develop,implement and maintain a SafetyManagement System (SMS) whichincludes the following functionalrequirements:

.1 a safety and environmentalprotection policy;

.2 instructions and procedures toensure safe operation of ships

and protection of the environ-ment in compliance withrelevant international and flagstate legislation;

.3 defined levels of authority andlines of communication between,and amongst, shore andshipboard personnel;

.4 procedures for reportingaccidents and non-conformitieswith the provisions of this Code;

.5 procedures to prepare for andrespond to emergency situations;and

.6 procedures for internal auditsand management reviews.

2 SA FETY AND ENV IR ONM ENTALPROTECTION POLICY

2.1 The Company should establish a safety

and environmental protection policywhich describes how the objectives,given in paragraph 1.2, will beachieved.

2.2 The Company should ensure that thepolicy is implemented and maintainedat all levels of the organisation bothship based and shore based.

3 COMPANY RESPONSIBILITIES ANDAUTHORITY

3.1 If the entity who is responsible for theoperation of the ship is other than the

owner, the owner must report the fullname and details of such entity to theAdministration.

3.2 The Company should define anddocument the responsibility, authorityand interrelation of all personnel whomanage, perform and verify workrelating to and affecting safety andpollution prevention.

3.3 The Company is responsible forensuring that adequate resources andshore based support are provided toenable the designated person orpersons to carry out their functions.

4 DESIGNATED PERSON(S)

To ensure the safe operation of each ship and toprovide a link between the Company and thoseon board, every Company, as appropriate, shoulddesignate a person or persons ashore havingdirect access to the highest level of management.The responsibility and authority of thedesignated person or persons should includemonitoring the safety and pollution preventionaspects of the operation of each ship andensuring that adequate resources and shore basedsupport are applied, as required.

5 M AS TE R S R ES PON SI BI LI TY A NDAUTHORITY

5.1 The Company should clearly defineand document the masters respons-ibility with regard to:

.1 implementing the safety andenvironmental-protection policyof the Company;

.2 motivating the crew in theobservation of that policy;

.3 issuing appropriate orders andinstructions in a clear and simplemanner;

.4 verifying that specified require-ments are observed; and

.5 reviewing the SMS and reportingits deficiencies to the shore-based management.

5.2 The Company should ensure that the SMSoperating on board the ship contains a clear


8/25

8

statement emphasising the mastersauthority. The Company should establish inthe SMS that the master has the overridingauthority and the responsibility to makedecisions with respect to safety andpollution and to request the Companysassistance as may be necessary.

6 RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL

6.1 The Company should ensure that themaster is:

.1 properly qualified for command;

.2 fully conversant with theCompanys SMS; and

.3 given the necessary support so

that the masters duties can besafely performed.

6.2 The Company should ensure that eachship is manned with qualified,certificated and medically fit seafarersin accordance with national andinternational requirements.

6.3 The Company should establishprocedures to ensure that newpersonnel and personnel transferred to

new assignments related to safety andprotection of the environment aregiven proper familiarisation with theirduties. Instructions which are essentialto be provided prior to sailing shouldbe identified, documented and given.

6.4 The Company should ensure that allpersonnel involved in the CompanysSMS have an adequate understandingof relevant rules, regulations, codesand guidelines.

6.5 The Company should establish andmaintain procedures for identifyingany training which may be required insupport of the SMS and ensure thatsuch training is provided for allpersonnel concerned.

6.6 The Company should establishprocedures by which the shipspersonnel receive relevant informationon the SMS in a working language orlanguages understood by them.

6.7 The Company should ensure that the

ships personnel are able tocommunicate effectively in theexecution of their duties related to theSMS.

7 DEVELOPM ENT OF PLA NS F ORSHIPBOARD OPERATIONS

The Company should establish procedures for thepreparation of plans and instructions for keyshipboard operations concerning the safety of theship and the prevention of pollution. The varioustasks involved should be defined and assigned toqualified personnel.

8 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

8.1 The Company should establishprocedures to identify, describe and

respond to potential emergencyshipboard situations.

8.2 The Company should establishprogrammes for drills and exercises toprepare for emergency actions.

8.3 The SMS should provide for measuresensuring that the Companysorganisation can respond at any time tohazards, accidents and emergencysituations involving its ships.

9 R EPO RT S A ND A NA LY SIS OF NON -CONFORMITIES, ACCIDENTS ANDHAZARDOUS OCCURRENCES

9.1 The SMS should include proceduresensuring that non-conformities,accidents and hazardous situations arereported to the Company, investigatedand analysed with the objective ofimproving safety and pollutionprevention.

9.2 The Company should establishprocedures for the implementation ofcorrective action.

10 MAINTENANCE OF THE SHIP ANDEQUIPMENT

10.1 The Company should establishprocedures to ensure that the ship ismaintained in conformity with theprovisions of the relevant rules andregulations and with any additional

requirements which may be establishedby the Company.


9/25

9

10.2 In meeting these requirements theCompany should ensure that:

.1 inspections are held atappropriate intervals;

.2 any non-conformity is reported,with its possible cause, if known;

.3 appropriate corrective action istaken; and

.4 records of these activities aremaintained.

10.3 The Company should establishprocedures in its SMS to identifyequipment and technical systems thesudden operational failure of which

may result in hazardous situations. TheSMS should provide for specificmeasures aimed at promoting thereliability of such equipment orsystems. These measures shouldinclude the regular testing of stand-byarrangements and equipment ortechnical systems that are not incontinuous use.

10.4 The inspections mentioned in 10.2 aswell as the measures referred to in 10.3

should be integrated into the shipsoperational maintenance routine.

11 DOCUMENTATION

11.1 The Company should establish andmaintain procedures to control alldocuments and data which are relevantto the SMS.

11.2 The Company should ensure that:

.1 valid documents are available at

all relevant locations;

.2 changes to documents arereviewed and approved byauthorised personnel; and

.3 obsolete documents are promptlyremoved.

11.3 The documents used to describe andimplement the SMS may be referred toas the Safety Management Manual.

Documentation should be kept in a

form that the Company considers mosteffective. Each ship should carry on board all documentation relevant tothat ship.

12 COMPANY VERIFICATION, REVIEWAND EVALUATION

12.1 The Company should carry out internalsafety audits to verify whether safetyand pollution-prevention activitiescomply with the SMS.

12.2 The Company should periodicallyevaluate the efficiency of and, whenneeded, review the SMS in accordancewith procedures established by theCompany.

12.3 The audits and possible correctiveactions should be carried out inaccordance with documentedprocedures.

12.4 Personnel carrying out audits shouldbe independent of the areas beingaudited unless this is impracticable dueto the size and the nature of theCompany.

12.5 The results of the audits and reviews

should be brought to the attention of allpersonnel having responsibility in thearea involved.

12.6 The management personnel respon-sible for the area involved should taketimely corrective action on deficienciesfound.

13 CERTIFICATION, VERIFICATION ANDCONTROL

13.1 The ship should be operated by a

Company which is issued a documentof compliance relevant to that ship.

13.2 A document of compliance should beissued for every Company complyingwith the requirements of the ISM Code by the Administration, by anorganisation recognised by theAdministration or by the Governmentof the country, acting on behalf of theAdministration in which the Companyhas chosen to conduct its business. This

document should be accepted as


10/25

10

evidence that the Company is capableof complying with the requirements ofthe Code.

13.3 A copy of such a document should beplaced on board in order that themaster, if so asked, may produce it forthe verification of the Administrationor organisations recognised by it.

13.4 A certificate, called a SafetyManagement Certificate, should beissued to a ship by the Administration

or organisation recognised by theAdministration. The Administrationshould, when issuing the certificate,verify that the Company and itsshipboard management operate inaccordance with the approved SMS.

13.5 The Administration or an organisationrecognised by the Administrationshould periodically verify the properfunctioning of the ships SMS asapproved.


11/25

11

ANNEX 2: GUIDANCE ON DEVELOPING A SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

1. Introduction

It has already been stated that the human element plays some part in virtually all accidents. While theoperational responsibility lies with the master, the overall responsibility for the safe operation of theship rests with the company. Casualty investigations, including Formal Investigations, have shown thatgood management practice is not always followed. These notes are not a substitute for reading the Codeand other useful reference material but are intended to guide and suggest good practice on thedevelopment of a Safety Management System which meets the requirements of the Code. It isrecognised that not all companies are the same and significant differences will exist between theoperation of vessels of different types. Therefore these notes should not be considered as exhaustive.

2. A Safety Management System (SMS)

Meeting the requirements of the ISM Code requires a company to:

Establish a safety and environmental policy, Provide for safe practices,

Identify risks and establish suitable safeguards, Document its management procedures, Ensure compliance with relevant rules, regulations and take account of relevant guidelines etc., Define clear lines of responsibility and communication, Designate a person ashore responsible for monitoring the safety and pollution prevention aspects

of the operation of each ship, Provide adequate resources, including suitably qualified and medically fit personnel, Provide instructions for shipboard operations and emergency situation, Maintain the ship and equipment, Provide relevant and current documentation, Carry out internal audits and review the SMS.

3. The Designated Person

As already mentioned the Designated Persons (DP) role should not be undervalued. The DP mustactively ensure that the ships are properly and responsibly operated and to this end should maintainclose contact with Masters and Officers. They should visit the ships at regularly intervals. They shouldmonitor internal audits, corrective actions, safety, accident and casualty reports and the generalefficiency of the Safety Management System.

4. Shipboard Instructions and Procedures

4.1 In developing instructions for shipboard operations a suggested outline of the contents whichshould be included is given below. It is acknowledged that every company and ship isdifferent and the actual contents will vary and change with time. Every ship should carry

shipboard instructions, which should contain the following statement:

4.1.1 General

.1 Documented Company Safety and Environmental Policy and the importance ofsafety and its relationship to efficient commercial operation.

Nothing in these instructions removes from the master his authority to take anysteps and issue any orders, whether or not they are in accordance with theinstructions, which he considers are necessary for the preservation of life, the safetyof the ship or the prevention of pollution.


12/25

12

.2 Company Structure (organogram) which illustrates the lines of communicationand the responsibilities within the company and onboard the ship. Identificationof the Designated Person and showing his direct access to the highest level ofmanagement.

.3 Written statements of authority and responsibility and in particular for the mastergiving him overriding authority to make decisions with respect to safety andpollution prevention and to request the companys assistance as may be necessary.

.4 Responsibilities of senior officers, duties of other officers, safety officers, safetyrepresentatives, petty officers and ratings. Masters and Senior Officers StandingOrders.

.5 Fitness for duty: Fatigue, drug and alcohol policy.

.6 Action to take if a key crew member, including the master, dies or becomesincapacitated.

.7 Reporting procedures, including internal onboard, from the ship to the company

and to others, such as for reporting casualties, accidents and dangerous incidents.(e.g. MCA, MAIB, classification society, insurance company etc.).

.8 Training: Means of identifying training needs, onboard training including drillsand external training courses ashore.

.9 Discipline: Application of Code of Conduct for the Merchant Navy, Companypolicy and grievance procedures.

.10 Procedures for Document Control: How to keep the documents up to date andways of suggesting improvements and amendments. The system should not beconsidered as static but continually developing and improving.

.11 Welfare of those onboard: Health, hygiene and safety (e.g. making reference to theCode of Safe Working Practice).

.12 Medical arrangements: Designation of responsible officers, location and custody ofmedical equipment including First-Aid kits and Ship Captains Medical Guide.Action in cases beyond the scope of ship-board treatment.

4.1.2 Notes

.1 Reference should be made in appropriate places to legislation, Merchant ShippingNotices, Marine Guidance Notes, Marine Information Notes and Code of SafeWorking Practice and other relevant Codes and documents.

.2 The information given is for guidance but ultimately it is the responsibility of thecompany to develop a system which best suits its needs and those of the Code.

.3 It is recognised that frequent crew changes can influence ship-board organisation.Where ships have multiple crews, all masters must be fully conversant with onestandard Safety Management System.

.4 The relevant Safety Management Documents should be available and accessiblefor all persons who may need to use them. e.g. a set on the bridge, in the engineroom and in the hotel department.

.5 Check-lists can be useful to assist routine checks, e.g. prior to sailing, maintenanceetc.


13/25

13

4.2 Shipboard Operation: General

.1 Masters and Senior Officers Standing Orders.

.2 Watch-keeping at sea and in port, including anchor watches. (Refer to STCW asapplicable).

.3 Harbour stations: Mooring and Anchoring.

.4 Fire and security patrols and surveillance.

.5 Ship-board maintenance: scheduled maintenance of equipment, consideration beinggiven to critical systems. On-board repairs, requesting shore assistance for repairs.Defect reporting: procedures for reporting, dealing with and ensuring that defects arerectified. Checks and maintenance of fire-fighting, life saving equipment andemergency lockers.

.6 Maintaining records: The location and persons responsible for keeping relevantrecords, including e.g. deck, engine, official log books, charts and nautical publications,

Merchant Shipping Notices, Marine Guidance Notes, Marine Information Notes,Notices to Mariners and other official publications. Lists of approved berths, technicalrecords and reports, instruction manuals for on-board equipment; stability book,draught records, compass error book, manoeuvring data, shipboard oil pollution andemergency plan, oil record book, statutory and classification certificates etc.

.7 Passenger Control: Embarkation and disembarkation arrangements including theboarding card procedures. Disembarkation information, including information relatingto emergency situations, vandalism, alcohol abuse, restraint of passengers in extremecases, exclusion of unauthorised persons from vehicle decks, ensuring emergencyexists, passageways, escapes, fire doors, access to emergency equipment are kept clearat all times.

.8 Inspections by master and senior officers. Routine testing of equipment.

.9 Arrangements and conditions relating to Statutory and Classification Certificates.

.10 Prevention of pollution: Reference to the shipboard oil pollution emergency plan.

.11 Use of pilots and tugs.

.12 Requirements relating to watertight doors.

.13 Requirements relating to bow, stern and other openings in the ships hull structure.

.14 Safety Committee meetings: Minuted and circulated/posted up.

.15 Onboard internal audits: At specified intervals, identify any non-conformities, takeappropriate timely corrective actions.

.16 Onboard review: At specified intervals, evaluate the efficiency of the SMS and bring tothe attention of relevant personnel.

4.3 Shipboard Operations: In Port

.1 Embarkation and disembarkation arrangements, boarding card systems, traffic control.


14/25

14

.2 Responsibility for acceptance of cargo. Checking the suitability of vehicles forshipment, securing cargo, dangerous goods, liaison with shore, stowage plans.Continuous monitoring of ships stability and trim. Operation of loading ramps,moveable decks and other cargo gear. Operation of fork-lift and loading/unloadingtractor vehicles. Weight limitations and permissible deck loadings. Precautions againstpilferage. Ventilation of vehicle decks and other cargo spaces.

.3 Harbour watches and security patrols. In-port maintenance including procedures tofollow when the ship is temporarily immobilised. Liaison with Port Authority andobservance of Harbour Byelaws.

.4 Bunkering and storing.

.5 Cargo Operations: preparations, procedures for loading and discharge of tankers(including inert gas systems), gas carriers, bulk carriers and other special ship types aswell as general cargo vessels. (refer to the relevant Codes and Port Authorityrequirements).

.6 Special arrangements during lay-up or refit periods.

.7 Gas freeing of tanks and enclosed spaces.

.8 Hot work and other special hazardous work procedures.

4.4 Preparing For Sea

Note: It is strongly recommended that check-lists are drawn up, appropriate to the ship andservice, for each officer responsible for various aspects of this section: Completion of these shouldbe recorded in the appropriate log books for each and every voyage.

.1 Verification of passenger numbers.

.2 Reading and recording draughts.

.3 Assessment of Stability. What to do when calculated and observed figures differ.

.4 Checking the securing of vehicles and other cargo.

.5 Checking for leakages from cargo pipelines and manifolds.

.6 Securing hatches and other openings in the hull.

.7 Closing of watertight doors.

.8 Testing of main engines, steering gear, navigation and communications equipment.

.9 Instructions on Bridge/Engine room controls.

.10 Assessment of actual and expected weather and sea state, using both official forecastsand own observations.

.11 Plan of passage made and checked.

.12 Crew on board, at stations and fit for duty.

.13 Report to Master by each responsible officer.


15/25

15

.14 Assessment by Master of readiness to sail. To ensure all statutory and companyrequirements are complied with. Master to evaluate any reported deficiencies andeither satisfy himself that they are acceptable or require them to be rectified beforedeparture.

.15 Documentation of sailing condition.

.16 Clearance.

.17 Safety Broadcasts to passengers.

.18 Rounds of passenger, vehicle and other decks on clearing the berth.

4.5 Shipboard Operations: At Sea

.1 Watchkeeping requirements in general; Bridge, Engine Room and Radio. Masters andChief Engineers standing orders.

.2 Navigation: Position monitoring. Use of navigational and visual observations.

Maintaining dead reckoning. Checks of radio navigation aids and compass by visualobservation.

.3 Look-out: Masters Standing Orders and company requirements. Observance of theCollision Regulations and other requirements. Reference to STCW requirements, restperiods etc. Special requirements in fog or bad weather.

.4 Monitoring of machinery and other equipment. Keeping records and logs Cleanlinessof machinery spaces. Special requirements when watertight doors are shut. Monitoringthe condition of cargo and inert gas systems.

.5 Radio communications including use of VHF.

.6 Fire and safety patrols and surveillance.

.7 Upkeep of deck, engine and radio logs. Movement recording.

.8 Maintaining officers familiarity with manoeuvring and other data.

.9 Passenger information broadcasts.

.10 Internal communication systems and procedures.

4.6 Emergencies And Contingencies

Contingency planning, drills and musters should cover at least:

.1 General Emergency Procedures, Signals and Organisation with cross-referencing totraining manuals.

.2 Fire: Prevention, alarms, first-aid fire-fighting. Fire parties.

.3 Collision; Grounding; Damage Control.

.4 Man Overboard.

.5 Action in the event of the failure of essential equipment. (e.g. main or auxiliary engines,

steering).


16/25


17/25

17

ANNEX 3: ANNEX TO IMO CIRCULAR (MSC/CIRC. 762) (11 JULY 1996)

MSC/Circ.762MEPC/Circ.312

ANNEX

GUIDANCE TO COMPANIES OPERATING MULTI-FLAGGED FLEETSAND SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDELINES TO ADMINISTRATIONS

Purpose

1. To give guidance to companies operating multi-flagged fleets and to give supplementaryguidelines to Administrations. To ensure that all Administrations concerned can be satisfied andhave faith that the DOC has been issued fully in accordance with resolution A.788(19).

2. The Assembly, at its nineteenth session, adopted resolution A.788(19) - Guidelines forAdministrations on the implementation of the ISM Code. These guidelines are generally acceptedas being a good basis on which Administrations can build as experience is gained in implementing

the Code. The same resolution requests Administrations to review the Guidelines in the light ofsuch experience.

3. Experience to date has highlighted that the Guidelines referred to in paragraph 2 provide noguidance as to how companies operating multi-flagged fleets are to be treated. The absence of suchguidance is leading to confusion amongst all sectors of the industry which under certaincircumstances may lead to unnecessary duplication of work if not properly addressed, willdiminish the impact of the ISM Code on the shipping industry.

4. The Maritime Safety Committee and the Marine Environment Protective Committee, consideringthe matter at their sixty-sixth and thirty-eighth sessions respectively, agreed on the followingsupplementary guidance to be followed by companies and Administrations, as appropriate.

Guidance for companies operating multi-flagged fleets

5. To facilitate the auditing and certification process companies should approach the relevant flagAdministrations, proposing a plan of action and requesting agreement by all parties. This planshould clearly state which entity (see paragraph 8) is to conduct which part of the process.

6. This approach by companies should be taken at least 12 months prior to the mandatory applicationdate for the particular ship type or types involved.

Supplementary Guidelines to Administrations on auditing and certification of companies operatingmulti-flagged fleets

7. Administrations approached by a company operating a multi-flagged fleet should enter into apositive dialogue with other involved Administrations in order to facilitate the auditing andcertification process and to avoid unnecessary duplication of work. Relevant agreements may bereached with other involved Administrations for this purpose.

8. In this respect Administrations should bear in mind that the provision of SOLAS regulation IX/4.1allows for the following entities to issue DOCs:

the Administration itself; a recognised organisation authorised by the Administration; or at the request of the Administration, by another Contracting Government.

9. The need for establishing a clear link between the shore-based part of the Safety ManagementSystem of the company and the shipboard parts should be clearly recognised.


18/25

18


19/25


20/25


21/25

Original Article for Maritime Risk International

By Dr Phil Anderson

The ISM Designated Person - Keystone or Scapegoat?

Although we are now well over seven years since the deadline for Phase One ISM

implementation and rapidly moving towards the 10th

anniversary of the mandatory

compliance for RO-RO Passenger ferries in EU waters there remains many grey

areas when it comes to considering the role and responsibilities of the Designated

Person.

I have visited some ship operating Companies where the Designated Person (D.P.), or

Designated Person Ashore (DPA) as they have often become known, sits at the right

hand of the Shipowner holding a very senior position in the Company, with many

years sea service as well as shore management experience, and the Shipowner

consults the DPA before making any major decision. I have visited other Companieswhere the DPA is a young graduate who has never been to sea and who occupies a

small room at the back of the office and who is wheeled out once a year when the R/O

appears on behalf of the Flag State Administration to conduct an annual verification /

review to maintain the Document of Compliance (DOC). I have visited other

Companies where the DPA is also the Operations Manager or the Technical Manager

as well as being the Safety Manger, Security Manager and wearing a number of

other hats. I have even visited Companies where the DPA is sub-contracted and

totally external to the day-to-day operations of the Company sometimes residing in

a different city.

How, we might ask, can there be such a diversity of responses across the industry tonot only the appointment but also the status of the DPA within a Company?

The idea of the Designated Person was actually something of an after thought with

regard to the ISM Code. In the original drafts there was no mention of such an entity

the idea was apparently introduced by the UK delegation to IMO who were concerned

to learn the lessons from theHerald of Free Enterprise tragedy in March 1987.

What appears to have been behind the development of subsequent UK Regulations

and the proposal to the IMO was the apparent lack of accountability at various levels

of shore management of the Herald of Free Enterprise, even though concerns had

been raised by the ferry Masters of the dangers of sailing with the bow doors open. It

became apparent during the formal inquiry which followed that the individuals within

the management did not assume any responsibility to deal with the problem or to see

to it that remedial steps were taken.

Following the Formal Inquiry, the Merchant Shipping (Operations Book) Regulations

1988 were laid before Parliament and came into force in December that year. The

Regulations were applicable to all UK passenger ships on short sea trade (Class II and

IIA) and were developed around the two central tenets:

All such ships should carry an operations book containing instructions andinformation for safe and efficient operations, and


22/25

Owners were required to nominate a person (known as the Designated Person)to oversee the operation of their ships and to ensure that proper provisions

were made so that the requirements of the operations book were complied

with.

There is certainly some clear guidance there as to what the DP was intended toachieve. However, by the time of the 18

thsession of the IMO Assembly on 4

th

November 1993, when the draft of the ISM Code by way of Resolution A.741(18)

was approved, a certain amount of restructuring and embellishment had taken place.

The role of the Designated Person, in the ISM Code is set out in Section 4:

4 DESIGNATED PERSON(S)

To ensure the safe operation of each ship and to provide a link between the Company

and those on board, every Company, as appropriate, should designate a person or

persons ashore having direct access to the highest level of management. Theresponsibility and authority of the designated person or persons should include

monitoring the safety and pollution-prevention aspects of the operation of each ship

and ensuring that adequate resources and shore-based support are applied, as required.

This would clearly go far beyond what was envisaged by the UK Regulations but

exactly what was intended is far from clear. Indeed many practicing lawyers and

academics spent much time debating the implications - even from those very early

days of the development of the Code. As we approach the end of 2006 those debates

are still with us and still without an agreed solution or conclusion.

Before I revisit the debate, or indeed any legal debate involving the ISM Code, I think

it is crucial that we state loud and clear that the ISM Code was never intended to

create new inter-party liabilities in the context of claims and disputes it was

formulated with the clear purpose of improving and extending standards of maritime

safety and the protection of the environment.

If we break down Section 4 of the Code we can identify three distinct but related

functions:

To provide a link between the ship and the office ashore; To have access to the highest levels of management; To monitor the operation of the SMS and to ensure it is adequately resourced.

Linked to these express requirements there are many more implied requirements.

The problems which arise include what is actually intended by the express

requirements and the recognition that there is no uniform agreement across the

industry as to what the implied requirements might be.

I was amazed to visit one ship operating company where the DPA had not actually

been on board any of their 20 or so ships and had met barely a hand full of Masters

and senior offices and had not met any junior officers or other crew members. He

received communications from the ships, stamped them upon receipt, copied them,sent a copy back to the ship confirming receipt and filed the original. I have seen


23/25

other DPAs who are doubling up as Operations Managers or Technical Managers and

who know the ships and the people intimately. What must have been intended by the

original draftsmen of the Code was surely a conduit a focal point for the

communication flow on matters of safety to freely pass in both directions.

Traditionally, the Marine Superintendent would often perform such a useful function.

However, to facilitate such a communication flow I do believe that the DPA must bewell known, trusted and respected by those on board the ship and in the office ashore.

They must be seen to be effective, to deal with issues, to provide leadership and

support and ensure that feedback loops are always closed.

It is one thing to have access to the highest levels of management the question arises

though as to exactly what use the DPA should make of that access? I think few would

disagree that it must be implied that the DPA will use that access to advise the highest

levels of management of how the SMS is running and particularly to bring to their

attention any problems. So far so good! What is far from clear is just how much detail

should be passed up to the highest levels of management and how frequently? To

some extent the answer might depend upon the size of the Company. In a very smallCompany the Shipowner is probably personally aware of almost everything going on

aboard each of his / her ships. In a large ship management company the CEO would

be totally swamped and surely could not function if every near miss or hazardous

occurrence was brought to his / her desk the Company would grind to a halt.

However, consider the situation of a an incident occurring which has led to loss of life

it turns out that a numbers of similar incidents had occurred, without serious injuries

on those occasions, or near miss reports had been received but no action had been

taken by the Company and the CEO, perhaps genuinely, declares that he / she had not

been made aware of these other incidents. Is that lack of knowledge going to help

them if they are facing a manslaughter or Corporate Killing charge?

Lord Donaldson addressed a very similar scenario in 1998 when he described it as

the errant shipowners Achilles heel. He explained the problem in the following

terms:

The blind eye shipowner is faced with a catch 22 situation. If he hears

nothing from the designated person, he will be bound to call for reports, for it is

inconceivable there will be nothing to report. If the report is to the effect that all

is well in a perfect world, the shipowners would be bound to enquire how that

could be, as the safety management system is clearly intended to be a dynamic

system which is subject to continuous change in the light not only of theexperience of the individual ship and of the Company as a whole, but also of the

experience of others in the industry (Lord Donaldson - The ISM Code: the

road to discovery, [1998] LMCLQ 526)

There had been many predictions in the lead up to the ISM implementation deadlines

of Designated Persons and indeed Shipowners and Chief Executives of ship

operating Companies being prosecuted or called to task for failing to monitor the

efficient running of their SMS. A belief developed that the DPA was going to be used

as a scapegoat if things went wrong. However, with the exception of one or two

incidents in the United States there has been a noticeable absence of any cases

proceeding through the Courts or otherwise reaching the public attention. There are atleast three possible conclusions we could reach based upon this silence:


24/25

1. All the Safety Management Systems of all the ship operating Companies areworking fairly close to perfection i.e. it never materialised as a problem;

2. The problems did arise, and continue to arise, but have not been identified byany of the parties or the parties have chosen not to pursue the matter;

3. The problems did arise, and continue to arise, but the cases have not yetreached the Courts i.e. they have been settled / dealt with out of court or inprivate Arbitration / mediation.

However much I would like number 1 to be correct unfortunately it is not. The

answer is both number 2 and number 3. I think many people, including lawyers,

claims handlers, insurers, recovery agents and the like, have still to wake up to the

potential consequences flowing from the role of the DPA. It may be that they do not

know what to look for or where to look. Having said that, I am very aware that there

are lawyers and others, both as claimants and defendants, who have discovered the

potential indeed I am instructed as a consultant and expert witness in many cases

both in civil and criminal actions where the focus of attention comes on how theCompany managed safety and whether any failure in the management of safety

contributed to the incident.

Often, in these cases, the role of the DPA is being examined very closely and what I

am seeing, on a number of occasions, is a DPA who is ineffective and often not really

knowing or understanding their actual role or what is expected of them as DPA. I

have seen Safety Management Systems which are ineffective mainly because of a

reluctance by the DPA to recognise and accept that it is ineffective usually because

the SMS was the DPAs own creation. I have seen too many examples of instances

where the DPA is actually acting as a barrier to the efficient working of the SMS.

Unfortunately, it is only when an incident happens that these barriers are being

exposed and the understanding of the potential consequences starts to sink in.

The DPA, in my view, occupies a keystone position within any Safety Management

System but has often received little or no training or familiarisation in what is actually

required to adequately and effectively perform the job of a DPA. This may partly

arise from the fact that the role is so poorly defined in the first place.

In the UK a little more detail is provided in SI 1998 No. 1561 The Merchant Shipping

(International Safety Management (ISM) Code) Regulations 1998 which states, at

Section 8:

Designated Person

8. (1) The company shall designate a person who shall be responsible for monitoring the safe

and efficient operation of each ship with particular regard to the safety and pollution

prevention aspects.

(2) In particular, the designated person shall-

(a) take such steps as are necessary to ensure compliance with the company safety

management system on the basis of which the Document of Compliance was issued; and

(b) ensure that proper provision is made for each ship to be so manned, equipped and

maintained that it is fit to operate in accordance with the safety management system and with

statutory requirements.

(3) The company shall ensure that the designated person-(a) is provided with sufficient authority and resources; and


25/25

(b) has appropriate knowledge and sufficient experience of the operation of ships at sea and in

port,

to enable him to comply with paragraphs (1) and (2) above.

I understand that the IMO Maritime Safety Committee is about to undertake a reviewof the ISM Code in the near future. There are a number of issues I feel should be

included in their deliberations and I believe that a clearer explanation of the role and

responsibilities, as well as the appropriate qualifications and experience of DPAs

should be high on the list. Such an opportunity to amend and improve the Code will

not arise very often. I would urge everyone in the industry to give careful thought to

this and consider submitting ideas and suggestions for possible amendment to your

flag state Administration or an NGO with which you may be associated e.g.

International Chamber of Shipping, BIMCO, IACS, IFSMA etc. or write directly to

the IMO.

At this time I have seen little evidence to suggest that DPAs are being, or have beenused as scapegoats although they are, potentially, very exposed. I do see them as

keystones to provide the structure and support for an efficient and effective SMS

but, all too often I fear they are not adequately performing their intended role. It

should also be recognised though that there are Companies out there where the DPAs

have been adequately trained and are functioning extremely well. These Companies

and DPAs should be identified and persuaded to share with the rest of the industry

what they have done and how they have done it so that we all may learn for the

general benefit of our industry and our planet.