safety campaign - impahq.org · safety campaign 20183 results this year suggest that there is a...

S A F E T Y C A M P A I G N

2 0 1 8

CONTENTS

2 Beliefs

3 Foreword

4 Participants

5 Vessel Type

6 Compliance by

Means of Transfer

7-9 Non-Compliance

by Type of Defect

10 Required Boarding

Arrangements for

Pilot

11 IMPA Officers

and Secretariat

Please Note:

All the cover photographs

were taken during the

two-week survey period.

O U R M I S S I O N

22 I N T E R N A T I O N A L M A R I T I M E P I L O T S ’ A S S O C I A T I O NI N T E R N A T I O N A L M A R I T I M E P I L O T S ’ A S S O C I A T I O N

IMPA represents the international community of pilots. We use the resources of our membership to promote effective safety outcomes in pilotage as an essential public service.

The public interest is best served by a fully regulated and cohesive pilotage service free of commercial pressure.

There is no substitute for the presence of a qualified pilot on the bridge.

IMO is the prime authority in matters concerning safety of international shipping.

All states should adopt a responsible approach based on proven safety strategies in establishing their own regulations, standards and procedures with respect to pilotage.

Existing and emerging information technologies are capable of enhancing on-board decision making by the maritime pilot.

Right and below: Compounding the danger to Pilots of non-SOLAS compliant Boarding Arrangements, is the efforts of some Administrations to force Pilots to use Elderly or Unsuitable vessels (like Tugs) to executive transfers. These two examples are both from Europe.

B E L I E F S1

2

3

4

5

P I L O T L A D D E R S A F E T Y S U R V E Y 2 0 1 8

33S A F E T Y C A M P A I G N 2 0 1 8S A F E T Y C A M P A I G N 2 0 1 8

Results this year suggest that there is a small improvement in the level of compliance, yet still one in eight pilot transfer arrangements fail to comply.

It is most welcoming that since last year many maritime stakeholders have referred to the IMPA pilot ladder safety report. Yet still so many stakeholders act as if SOLAS V/23 is optional or aspirational, rather than an internationally accepted standard. All maritime stakeholders need to stand up and take what action they can to improve pilot transfer safety.

Class Societies should ensure that when signing off boarding arrangements for vessels, that their primary consideration is safety rather than commercial expedience. Indeed, some societies have realised of late that their own surveyors use Pilot Ladders and suffer like Pilots from inadequate arrangements. Port and flag state inspectors should ensure their inspectors are familiar with SOLAS V/23 requirements and prepared to enforce their requirements. Shipowners’ superintendents should ensure that the equipment purchased actually meets requirements rather

than simply rely on often fake certificates. Sadly, it is amongst some of the most respected of ship operators that we have found the most obvious non-compliant arrangements.

It should not be assumed however that all accidents are a result of non-compliance with SOLAS V/23. This is not the case, there are many other contributory factors. This last year there have been deaths in Portugal and Finland due to pilot boat issues which are not covered by SOLAS

regulations. It is a sad fact that many major maritime administrations pay scant regard to the suitability of the craft that they employ to provide pilot transfer services. Once again cost rather than safety is the driver of some administrations providing unsuitable craft. Adoption of suitable codes for craft engaged in pilot transfers would help ensure they are fit for purpose.

The most perilous part of a vessel’s voyage is in pilotage waters, which is why pilots are engaged. For pilots the most perilous part of their day is embarking and disembarking the vessel, which is why SOLAS V/23 is required. Your compliance, consideration and action are essential.

F O R E W O R D

PA R T I C I PA N T S

The chart below shows 4,339 returns from participating IMPA members which have been grouped into 6 geographical areas. The total non-compliance is shown as a percentage of total returns from each region and and as a total.

Right: Picture by Rodge Musselwhite

44

TOTAL

NON

NON COUNTRY

RETURNS COMPLIANT

COMPLIANT COMPLIANT

AS %

Africa 100 81 19 19.00

Asia / Oceania 810 687 123 15.19

Europe 1679 1442 237 14.12

Middle East 79 71 8 10.13

North America 371 297 74 19.95

South America 1300 1191 109 8.38

TOTAL 4339 3769 570 13.14

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M A R I T I M E P I L O T S ’ A S S O C I A T I O NI N T E R N A T I O N A L M A R I T I M E P I L O T S ’ A S S O C I A T I O N

Africa

Asia / Oceania

Europe

Middle East

North America

South America

81

687

1442

71

297

1191

19

123

237

8

74

109

Compliant Non-Compliant

COMPLIANCE BY REGION

V E S S E L T Y P E

Right: Picture by Rodge Musselwhite

The following chart shows a break down of all returns by vessel type. Both the number and the percentage of non-compliant vessels by type are shown.

55

TOTAL NON

NON VESSEL TYPE NUMBER OF COMPLIANT

COMPLIANT COMPLIANT

VESSELS AS %

General Cargo 621 519 102 16.43

Oil Tanker 712 628 84 11.8

Ro/Ro 162 148 14 8.64

Passenger 233 208 25 10.73

Container 946 830 116 12.26

Gas Tanker 165 154 11 6.67

Reefer 22 18 4 18.18

Fishing 13 8 5 38.46

Bulkcarrier 603 503 100 16.58

Chemical Tanker 308 267 41 13.31

Car Carrier 106 95 11 10.38

Rig Supply Vessel 115 97 18 15.65

Other (E.G. Navy) 400 352 48 12

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

General Cargo

Oil Tanker

Ro/Ro

Passenger

Container

Gas Tanker

Reefer

Fishing

Bulkcarrier

Chemical Tanker

Car Carrier

Rig Supply Vessel

Other (E.G. Navy)

COMPLIANCE BY VESSEL TYPE

S A F E T Y C A M P A I G N 2 0 1 8S A F E T Y C A M P A I G N 2 0 1 8


C O M P L I A N C E B YM E A N S O F T R A N S F E R

The following chart shows a breakdown of all returns by means of transfer. Both the number and the percentage of non-compliant means of transfer by type are shown.

66

MEANS OF

TOTAL

NON

NON

TRANSFER

NUMBER COMPLIANT

COMPLIANT COMPLIANT

AS %

Pilot Ladder 2729 2397 332 12.17

Combination 956 805 151 15.79

Side Door and 455 396 59 12.97Pilot Ladder

Gangway 82 76 6 7.32

Helicopter 45 42 3 6.67

Deck to Deck 164 136 28 17.07

TOTAL 4431 3852 579

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Pilot Ladder

Combination

Side Door and

Pilot Ladder

Gangway

Helicopter

Deck to Deck

COMPLIANCE BY MEANS OF TRANSFER



N O N - C O M P L I A N C EB Y T Y P E O F D E F E C T

The first pie chart shows the percentage of the defects that were reported to the Authority. The second pie chart shows non-compliance by type of defect. Both the number and percentage are shown.

77

TOTAL NUMBER OF NON-COMPLIANT SHIPS IN SURVEY REPORTED 570

Number of defects reported to Authority 46

% of non-compliant ships reported 8.07

% of ships reported 8.07

% of ships not reported 91.93

NON-COMPLIANT BY TYPE OF DEFECT TOTAL AS %

Pilot ladder 337 49.2

Bulwark/Deck 140 20.44

Combination 83 12.12

Safety Equipment 125 18.25

TOTAL 685

Pilot Ladder

Bulwark/Deck

Combination

Safety Equipment

DEFECTS REPORTED TO AUTHORITY

NON-COMPLIANCE BY TYPE OF DEFECT


% of ships not reported

% of ships reported


68

DEFECTS OF PILOT LADDER TOTAL AS %

Not against ship’s hull 57 11.75

Steps not of suitable material 8 1.65

Poorly rigged retrieval line 51 10.52

Steps broken 14 2.89

Steps not equally spaced 26 5.36

Pilot Ladder more than 9 metres 10 2.06

Steps dirty/slippery 20 4.12

Sideropes not of suitable material 19 3.92

Pilot Ladder too far forward/Aft 14 2.89

Steps painted 8 1.65

Incorrect step fittings 29 5.98

No bulwark ladder 11 2.27

Steps not horizontal 87 17.94

Other 131 27.01

TOTAL 485

DEFECTS OF PILOT LADDER

Not against ship’s hull

Steps not of suitable material

Poorly rigged retrieval line

Steps broken

Steps not equally spaced

Pilot Ladder more than 9 metres

Steps dirty/slippery

No/faulty handhold stanchions

Ladder not secured properly

Other

DEFECTS OF BULWARK / DECK

DEFECTS OF BULWARK / DECK TOTAL AS %

No/faulty handhold stanchions 52 33.55

Ladder not secured properly 87 56.13

Other 16 10.32

TOTAL 155

Sideropes not of suitable material

Pilot Ladder too far forward/Aft

Steps painted

Incorrect step fittings

No bulwark ladder

Steps not horizontal

Other


The first pie chart shows the types of defects of the pilot ladder. Both the number and percentage are shown. The second pie chart shows the types of defects of the bulwark / deck arrangements. Both the number and percentage are shown.


99

Inadequate lighting at night

No lifebuoy with self-igniting light

No VHF communication with the bridge

No heaving line

No responsible officer in attendance

Other

COMBINATION DEFECTS TOTAL AS %

Accommodation Ladder not leading aft 3 1.65

Lower platform stanchions / rail incorrect rigged 10 5.49

Accommodation ladder too steep (>45 degrees) 6 3.3

Pilot Ladder not attached 1-5mabove Accommodation Ladder 28 15.38

Lower platform not horizontal 17 9.34

Ladder(s) not secured to ship’s side 59 32.42

Lower platform less than 5 metresabove the sea 29 15.93

Other 30 16.48

TOTAL 182

SAFETY EQUIPMENT DEFECTS TOTAL AS %

Inadequate lighting at night 18 9.14

No lifebuoy with self-igniting light 73 37.06

No VHF communication with the bridge 17 8.63

No heaving line 40 20.3

No responsible officer in attendance 38 19.29

Other 11 5.58

TOTAL 197

COMBINATION DEFECTS

SAFETY EQUIPMENT DEFECTS

Accommodation Ladder not leading aft

Lower platform stanchions / rail incorrect rigged

Accommodation Laddertoo steep (>45 degrees)

Pilot Ladder not attached 1.5m above Accommodation Ladder

Lower platform not horizontal

Ladder(s) not secured to ship’s side

Lower platform less than5 metres above the sea

Other

The first pie chart shows the combination defects. Both the number and percentage are shown. The second pie chart shows the safety equipment defects. Both the number and percentage are shown.


RIG

GIN

G F

OR

FR

EEB

OA

RD

SO

F 9

MET

RES

OR

LES

S

HA

ND

HO

LDST

AN

CH

ION

SM

in. D

iam

. 32

mm

Min

.12

0cm

Abo

ve B

ulw

ark

MA

N-R

OPE

S(w

itho

ut k

nots

)M

in. D

iam

. 28

mm

Max

. Dia

m. 3

2m

mIF

REQ

UIR

EDBY

TH

E PI

LOT

SPR

EAD

ERM

in. 1

80

cm L

ong

Min

. 40

cm

31

-35

cm

MA

XIM

UM

9 S

TEPS

Be

twee

n sp

read

ers

5th

STE

P Fr

om

bo

tto

mm

ust

be a

spr

eade

r

6 M

ETR

ES

uno

bstr

ucte

dsh

ip’s

sid

eH

eigh

tRe

quir

ed b

y Pi

lot

SID

E RO

PES

Min

. Dia

m. 1

8m

m

ALL

STE

PSM

ust

rest

fir

mly

agai

nst

ship

’s s

ide

Han

dho

lds

Min

. 70

cmM

ax. 8

0cm

PILO

T L

AD

DER

Mu

st e

xten

dat

leas

t 2

met

res

abov

e lo

wer

plat

form

AC

CO

MM

OD

AT

ION

LA

DD

ERSe

cure

d to

sh

ip’s

sid

e Sh

ou

ld le

ad a

ft

A p

ilot

ladd

erre

qu

ires

a c

limb

of

no

t le

ss t

han

1.5

met

res

and

no

mo

re t

han

9 m

etre

s

The

low

erpl

atfo

rmsh

all b

e a

min

imu

mo

f 5

met

res

abov

e th

e se

a

CO

MB

INA

TIO

N A

RR

AN

GEM

ENT

FOR

SH

IPS

WIT

H A

FREE

BO

AR

D O

F M

OR

ET

HA

N 9

MET

RES

WH

EN N

O S

IDE

DO

OR

AV

AIL

AB

LE

Max

imu

m4

5˚

slo

pe

Low

erpl

atfo

rmh

ori

zon

tal

Reco

mm

ende

d9

met

res

free

boar

d m

ark

0.5

m

2m

2m

STER

N B

OW

Acc

om

mo

dati

on

ladd

er s

ho

uld

be s

ecu

red

tosh

ip’s

sid

e

(Usi

ng

eyep

ad,

mag

net

ic o

rpn

eum

atic

syst

em)

Ladd

er m

ust

be

firm

ly a

ttac

hed

to s

hip

’s s

ide

1.5

met

res

abov

eac

com

mo

dati

on

plat

form

NO

!N

o s

hack

les,

kno

ts o

r sp

lices

NO

!Th

e st

eps

mus

t be

equa

lly s

pace

d

NO

!Th

e st

eps

mus

t be

hori

zont

al a

nd c

hock

sun

der

the

step

s m

ust

beti

ghtl

y se

cure

d

NO

!Sp

read

ers

mus

tno

t be

lash

edbe

twee

n st

eps

NO

!Si

de r

ope

s m

ust

be e

qual

ly s

pace

d

NO

!Th

e st

eps

sho

uld

not

be p

aint

ed,

dirt

y o

r sl

ippe

ry

NO

!Lo

ops

and

tri

ppin

glin

es p

rese

nt a

trip

ping

haz

ard

and

foul

the

Pilo

t La

unch

Han

dho

lds

Min

. 70

cmM

ax. 8

0cm

Min

imum

Cle

aran

ce2

20

cm

Min

. 91

.5cm

Min

. 91

.5cm

Pad

eye

NO

OBSTRUCTIONS

PILO

T L

AD

DER

WIN

CH

REE

L

Min

imum

Cle

aran

ce2

20

cm

Min

imum

91

.5cm

Han

dhol

dsM

in. 7

0cm

Max

. 80c

m

All

pilo

t la

dder

win

ch r

eels

sho

uld

have

a m

eans

of

prev

enti

on

fro

mbe

ing

acci

dent

ally

ope

rate

d.

The

brak

e an

d lo

ck m

ust

be

ope

rati

ve o

n m

anua

lly o

pera

ted

win

ches

.

Pow

er w

inch

es m

ust

have

an

ope

rati

ve s

afet

y de

vice

to

lock

th

e w

inch

in p

osi

tio

n.

Side

ope

ning

Ship

’s s

ide

doo

rsus

ed f

or

tran

sfer

sho

uld

not

ope

no

utw

ard

Min

imum

Cle

aran

ce2

20

cm

Min

imum

91

.5cm

75

cm7

5cm

Han

dho

lds

Min

. 70

cmM

ax. 8

0cm

Han

dho

ld s

tan

chio

ns

rigi

dly

secu

red

to d

eck

Life

buoy

wit

hse

lf-i

gnit

ing

ligh

t

Bu

lwar

k &

Pilo

t la

dder

secu

red

to d

eck

stro

ng

poin

ts

Resp

on

sibl

e O

ffic

erin

co

nta

ct w

ith

bri

dge

REQ

UIR

ED B

OA

RD

ING

AR

RA

NG

EMEN

TS

FOR

PIL

OT

In a

cco

rdan

ce w

ith

SO

LAS

Regu

lati

on

V/2

3 &

IMO

Res

olu

tio

n A

.10

45

(27

)

INT

ERN

AT

ION

AL

MA

RIT

IME

PILO

TS’

ASS

OC

IAT

ION

H.Q

.S.“

Wel

lingt

on

”Te

mpl

e St

airs

,Vic

tori

a Em

ban

kmen

t,Lo

ndo

n W

C2

R 2

PN T

el:+

44

(0

)20

72

40

39

73

Fax

:+4

4 (

0)2

0 7

21

0 3

51

8 E

mai

l:o

ffic

e@im

pah

q.o

rgTh

is d

ocu

men

t an

d al

l IM

O P

ilot-

rela

ted

docu

men

ts a

re a

vaila

ble

for

dow

nlo

ad a

t:h

ttp:

//w

ww

.impa

hq

.org

A B C

I M PA O F F I C E R S

President

Captain Simon Pelletier - Canada

Senior Vice President / Treasurer

Captain Jean-Philippe Casanova - France

Vice Presidents

Captain Alvaro Moreno - Panama

Captain Choi, Yeong Sig - Korea

Captain John Pearn - UK

Captain Oumar Dramé - Senegal

Captain Ricardo Falcão - Brazil

I M PA S E C R E TA R I AT

Secretary General

Nick Cutmore

Executive Secretary

Caron James

Executive Assistant

Eliane Blanch

T H E I N T E R N AT I O N A LM A R I T I M E P I L O T ’ S A S S O C I AT I O N

International Maritime Pilots’ Association (IMPA)HQS Wellington, Temple Stairs, Victoria Embankment, London WC2R 2PNTelephone: +44 20 7240 3973 Fax: +44 20 7240 3518Email: [email protected] Website: www.impahq.org

safety campaign - impahq.org · safety campaign 20183 results this year suggest that there is a...

Documents