Part of

Offshore

Webinar Week11-13 August 2020

Remote DP trials & FMEAs:

What the guidelines say.

What the guidelines mean

11 August 2020 • 14:00-14:45 BST

Panellist & sponsor documents

Page 2: Dan Endersby, All Offshore

Page 6:Peter Solvang, DP & Marine Assurance Norway

Page 12: Mat Bateman, Keelson Marine Assurance

Page 19: Faisal Rashid, OCIMF

Page 25: Oystein Killingrod, Siem Offshore

Page 31: Keelson Marine Assurance Norway News

Sponsored by

Remote TrialsDaniel Endersby

OSJ Webinar Series – August 2020

Does the industry have a set definition of remote trials?

• Use of 3rd parties onshore

• Check results obtained by crew using traditional paper format reports

• The use of records

• Maintenance record as evidence of test results

• Data Driven

• Utilising data generated from the DP and Automation Systems for verification and validation of the tests

Data for Annual Trials

• Data to Insight

• Data along is no use

• Insight to Decision

• Supports better decision making

• Objective Data

• Implementation and Value Creation

• No point in having the insight if notimplemented

• Supporting validation withouthuman intervention

“In God we trust, all others bring data” -Deming

“We are all entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts” - Sherman

Perceived Issues

• 3rd party attendance onboard

• Required / Not required

• Continuous trials

• Acceptable to complete over a 12 month period

• Completion in one period (like a Car MOT)

• Validation of system configuration

• Consistency in setup for testing

• Ambiguous results (the setup or the results?)

Remote DP trialsWhat the guidance says, what the guidance means

In 2014 when we first introduced the scheme to the market, the guidance was very clear:

• IMCA 191 MODU’s were recommended to perform trials themselves, witnessed and signed off by the OIM or Master• IMCA M190 – rolling trials could be performed possibly as part of the vessels PMS• IMO 645 made no discrimination between attended and remote testing, only specifying that annual trials should be

performed. The reference in IMO 645 to tests being witnessed by an officer of the administration was aimed at annual Class surveys rather than the industry accepted annual trials.

• MSF closely followed IMCA, and MSF 182 is available as an IMCA publication and its guidance was identical to that in IMCA M190 – rolling trials possibly as part of the vessels PMS were permitted

• MTS at the time did not make any specific discrimination, but the gap analysis tool issued in September 2014 makes reference to M190 & M191 as above

• OCIMF in 2014 did not seem to make any discrimination regarding how tests should be performed, only that they should be.

So what does that all mean?

In a 2014 / 2015 nutshell, not only were remote trials permitted, they were the norm for MODU’s.

From 2015 to 2017 the guidance remained pretty much unchanged.

• Existing guidance was followed & remote trials rapidly become more popular with vessel owners, operators and vessel crews. Crew competence and confidence was shown to be greatly increased.

• Our management of the scheme was updated, introducing a free digital database where, amongst other things, remote trials were administered. All reporting is now digital and fully transparent, test results are held for 2 years.

• Acceptance of our scheme was granted by a number of oil majors following in depth external audits

• There was however an increasing ground swell of resistance – not from the people directly involved or having any knowledge or experience of them; not due to an increase in DP incidents of vessels on the scheme; but seemingly from within the DP industry itself.

• ‘Safety’ was repeatedly stated as the reason, yet there is no evidence to suggest that safety is compromised, or that MODU’s were less safe – remember M191 recommended remote trials as the primary method.

• There are no statistics showing that vessels on our remote trials systems have suffered any increase in DP incidents.• ‘They can cheat’ was another objection raised. Firstly most vessel crews do not want to cheat – they want to know if

anything is not 100% right on their vessel. Secondly – it is almost impossible to cheat using our system; and thirdly they can just as equally ‘cheat’ during attended trials if they really wanted to.

Things changed, or did they?

• MSF 182 rev 03 was issued in November 2018. No changes – the wording for rolling trials remains the same as IMCA190 back in 2014. Remotes can be performed possibly as part of the PMS. This remains an active and valid IMCApublication, carried on board by the vast majority of Offshore PSV’s, AHTS etc in the European sector.

• M191 was absorbed into M190 in 2017, vessels as well as MODU’s as were permitted to perform remotes.• IMO 645 became IMO 1580 and applicable to all new builds except section 4, DP operations manuals. So the old 645

remains in force for the vast majority of vessels out there. If it was valid in 2014, then it remains valid today.• MTS annual trials gap analysis tool (2014) remains unchanged.

However, as the ‘cheating’ and rapid fall in ‘DP safety’ became a concern, things changed again. Or did they?

• MSF 182 remains the same. IMO 645 / 1580 remain the same. MTS gap analysis tools remain the same• OCIMF released new guidance in 2020 to include remote trials• IMCA M190 (2019 & 2020) effectively outlawed remote (Incremental) trials. Shipowner / operators who followed

IMCA guidance, implementing remote trials into their vessel management routines now found themselves in a nowin situation.

• Unfortunately the release of M190 coincided with the onset of the present pamdemic which threw the industry intouncertainty and some degree of chaos. DP practitioners previously fervently against remote trials now rushed toimplement their own systems irrespective of any guidance or compliance with it.

So, where do we stand today?

It all very much depends on which guidance you want to follow.MSFIMCAMTS

OCIMF

OCIMF in 2020 (DP failure mode effects analysis assurance framework, Risk based guidance) seems to come theclosest in defining what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to remote trials (Yes, they even call themremote trials) and the evidence required, going so far as to define what is acceptable as evidence (Data centric,section 2.6.1). Great news.

So now we know what we can and cannot do to get remote trials accepted?

Afraid not, no.If, in the absence of any other definitive guidance you decide to exactly follow the 2020 OCIMF guidance regardingremote trials, to include ensuring that the evidence is 100% data centric and compliant, securely store all evidencefor 2 years you must be on solid ground, yes?Again, afraid not, no.Even if you do all of the above - There is little or no guarantee that OCIMF member companies will accept them.

Very many thanks for listening

Back to you in the studio, Edwin

OSJ Webinar Week

Remote DP Trials

Mat BatemanSenior PartnerKeelson Marine Assurance LLC

Download the FREE App “dynamic positioning”

Context?

In an time of sustained low oil prices everyone within the industry is looking to ways to reduce cost and increase efficiency.

Reducing onboard time of non crew or third parties is extremely attractive.

A growing currency within the Industry is a concept of ‘Remote DP Trials’

Application

Our experience is that how remote trials are applied varies greatly.

For some, remote DP trials are a set of tests prepared by a third party which the vessel staff carry out and for others there is a more integrated approach working with a manufacturer to digitally capture information. In between there is wide spectrum of solutions.

For us, during COVID we have, at Clients request, prepared remote trials, these have been evidenced by a Green, Yellow, Red ‘traffic lights’ of required evidence. Our reporting explains the context of trials in terms of being onboard.

Most Consultancies I know have provided or advertised ‘remote’ solutions of some form during the pandemic.

Inconvenient pause for thought

Any reasonably minded marine professional will accept that in times of ‘COVID’ remote solutions need to be explored, at worst as an interim position, but in a wider context:-

• IMCA in their clarification note on DP Annual Trials issued in April 2020 emphasize the need for an Independent Witness to trials and go further by stating there is no IMCA definition for ‘Remote Trials’, or any specific guidance on their conduct.

• Many Clients will not accept a set of ‘Remote DP Trials’ as robust assurance even going to the extent of imposing further trials with an Independent Witness onboard.

• Agree or not we cannot escape the fact that many in the DP Community take a negative view on the use of ‘Remote DP Trials’.

A digital world?

A word that is often used alongside the remote term is digital. In a world of autonomous vehicles, web conferencing and streaming a favorite movie from Netflix it’s easy to connect the two.

Offshore communication backbones are expensive, often restrictive in terms of mobility around the vessel and are susceptible to the vagaries of a life at sea such as a heading change.

Digital Trials are expressly addressed in the IMCA April 2020 ‘Test Requirements for DP Annual Trials Programs’

Paraphrasing - IMCA M190 will continue to be reviewed for allowance of digital solutions “it is essential such solutions are fully robust in their approach and provide an equal or better outcome for DP Annual Trials programmes”.

Wrap Up

Any tests are better than no tests and conducted responsibly against a good test programme remote trials can provide a level of assurance on DP performance both intact and under failure conditions.

If it was a commercial decision alone we are sure that remote trials would be here accepted by all.

The issue is the technical argument; are remote trials as robust as someone independent being onboard conducting DP Trials. For the pro remote trials lobby that argument needs to be made and we think it is very difficult.

That said do we think Remote Trials have a purpose / value, yes they do, all testing does. But they should not be seen with equivalency.

Thank You

Mat BatemanSenior PartnerKeelson Marine Assurance LLC

Download the FREE App “dynamic positioning”

Remote DP Trials / FMEA – discussing the guidelinesOffshore Webinar WeekVIRTUAL

Faisal Rashid Offshore Advisor

Sea Service: AHTs, PSVs, Shuttle Tankers, Conventional Tankersand Gas Carriers Sailed as: Captain - Unlimited Master Mariner & SDPO FPSO: TSS, OIM on 2 FPSOs Sea time with: STASCO

Offshore Activities: Marine risk management advice and support to upstream marine operations involving tugs, crew boats, Platform Supply Vessels (PSVs), Anchor Handling

Tugs (AHTs), Oil Spill Response Vessels (OSRVs), seismic vessels and heavy lift vessels.Shore Jobs: Marine Operations Superintendent then as Marine Assessor, Marine Operations Manager Upstream, Marine focal point for offshore operations in the North Sea.

Assessments: OVID & SIRE Inspector, ISO 9001, 14001 & 18001 Auditor, OVMSA Assessor Education: MSc in Marine Operations Offshore and an MBA in Executive Management from Harvard. Industry Recognitions: Specialist Fellow of the International Institute of Risk and Safety Management (SFIIRMS) and Associate Fellow of the Nautical Institute (AFNI). Awards: Awarded the Member of the British Empire (MBE) in 2014 for his community services in the United Kingdom

Remote DP trials & FMEAsWhat the guidelines say. What the guidelines mean

1. What is the definition of remote trials?a. There is no uniform industry definition of remote trialsb. Section 2.6.2 (Industry Guidance on periodic verification and validation) discusses this brieflyc. OCIMF DP FMEA IP has the following definitions for Remote Testing and Remote Witnessing

1.Remote Testing performed by crew or other owners' representative without the presence of (or remote witnessing by) a surveyor.

2.Remote Witnessing Testing performed while being remotely witnessed by a surveyor through a live video and sound feed.

2. Should a 3rd party be required onboard to verify and validate the configuration and test results?a. This is a determination to be made by the member companies of OCIMF.b. In general 3rd Party may be required to be on board, where the verification and validation activities are

not based on comprehensive data centricity and/or where skill levels of persons conducting the tests are not supplemented by a knowledge of FMEA testing and verification of attributes of performance, protection and detection.

3. Can there be data-driven approach to verify and validate each test configuration and the results?a. Yes, but only if there is a clear and comprehensive link between the test program and the element of

performance, protection and detection upon which the fault tolerance of the DP system depends.b. A fundamental aspect is that there should be a clear understanding of the objective of the test and what

is being verified or validated.c. Section 2.6.1 ( Data-centric evidence ) describes what constitutes acceptable data centric evidence

4. What data is required to be data driven? (if there is an agreement that data can be utilised for verification and validation then what type of data is required)

a. Everything that is recorded as substantiating evidence as part of the verification and validation tests is to be data driven which can be independently verifiable)

b. Data that is required should be able to corroborate test results ( both local effect and end(global)effect.c. Provide the ability to triangulate with information such as time, pressure, temperature, alarms etc

5. Are continuous trials acceptable or should they be completed in a single time period?a. This is a determination to be made by member companies of OCIMF. Some members accept

continuous trials for MODU’s but not for Construction Vessels or Logistics vessels.b. Vessels equipped with Built in test Equipment embodying the principles of Built to test, Test on Demand

and Healthy to Operate Functionality can carry out continuous verification. In such instances, member companies may elect to accept continuous trials..

c. The OCIMF DP FMEA Assurance IP provides definition for Rolling Tests / Incremental Test and information on periodic verification and validation in Section 2.6.2

6. Use of maintenance records as evidence a. Maintenance records can be used as substantiating evidence, If clear link to objectives of verification

and validation is documented and level of detail is provided ( e.g. “as expected” does not provide corroborating evidence and will not meet the test of data centricity)

b. Clear Identification and links to attributes of Performance / Protection and Detection should be documented.

Remote DP trials & FMEAsWhat the guidelines say. What the guidelines mean

Periodic Verification of FMEAs

•Emphasis on data centricity –Substantiating and supporting documentation to facilitate independent verification

•Objectives for 5-Yearly refreshes outlined–Incorporation of LFIs and industry guidance–Pathway for self assessment, self assurance activities provided

•Emphasis on exposure to risk due to a lack of independently verifiable data

–Attention drawn to non acceptance of methods that lack data centricity

•Agnostic to verification with or without the presence of a surveyor•‘Remote Trials’ based on independently verifiable data centricity not excluded

BACK UP SLIDE

Foundational Principles

•Glossary of terms – specific to information paper•Assurance document in the prescribed format•Focus on identification of common points•Common points to be subjected to single failure propagation analysis (Inclusive of effectiveness of compensating provisions and mitigations)•Requirement for Venn diagrams, sketches and redundancy verification tables (RVT)

Note: Approach is expected to drive standardisation and consistency facilitating effective assurance

BACK UP SLIDE

Remote DP trials

What the guidelines mean- to a vessel owner / operator

Siem Offshore & Remote Trials

Established in 2005

35 vessels in operation worldwide

22 vessels operated under the Norwegian DoC

First remote trial completed in 2016

A grand total of five – 5 – trials completed to date

4-5% of annual trials of Norwegian operated vessels

2

Experience from Remote Trials

Overall very good

Cost effective & less logistics

Done when vessel is idle

Good feedback from the crew

No difference in incidents / technical failures noted

Most important positive effect:

Crew’s competence and ownership

3

Attended Trials vs Remote Trials

Same tests

Consistency

Competence

Time

Verification

Overall positive experience, why only 5 remote? Lack of client acceptance, a measure of the quality

and consistency of the guidelines?

4

Way forward

Remote trials are here to stay

Siem:

Developing competence assessment tool

Project with annual trials in the the PMS.

Need a fact- and risk -based conversation.

Enough data for a study?

More consistent and definitive guidance is needed

5

Many thanks for your attention!