Analysis of the Maritime Inspection Regimes Are ships over-inspected? – PDF Free Download

1 analysis of the Maritime Inspection Regimes Are ships over-inspected ? Sabine Knapp 1 and Philip Hans Franses Econometric Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam Econometric Institute Report Abstract The miss of confidence in the maritime industry between all the diligence organizations and regulators has created an inspection industry which is heavily controlled by oil majors in order to limit their liability. This report is an basic separate of a PhD stick out called The Econometrics of Maritime Safety Recommendations to Enhance Safety at Sea which is based on 183,000 port state control inspections 2 and 11,700 casualties from diverse data sources. Its overall objective is to provide recommendations to improve condom at ocean. This character identifies all inspections that are performed in the appoint of guard onboard vessels, their estimated costs and frequencies and brings them in relation with policy claim costs from P & I Clubs. The probability of casualty is analyzed per frequency of inspection and detention. The results reveal that sealed ships are inspected frequently and that over-inspection does not necessarily decrease the probability of having a casualty but can preferably increase it. 1 Econometric Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, NL-3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, or 2 The authors would like to thank the trace secretariats for their kind co-operations : Paris MoU, indian Ocean MoU, Viña del Mar Agreement on PSC, Caribbean MoU, australian Maritime Safety Authority, the United States Coast Guard, Lloyd s Register Fairplay, Lloyd s Maritime Intelligence Unit, the International Maritime Organization ( IMO ), Right Ship and the Greenaward Foundation. 1 2 1. The complexity of the System 1.1. The Players of the Regime Figure 1 provides an overview of the players of the guard government which at first side seems complex. The legal framework is created by three major international organizations namely, the UN, ILO, and the IMO 3 and state specific legislation 4. The categorization societies provide the technical expertness during embark build and technical foul sustenance of the vessel. In accession, categorization societies can be authorized to perform statutory responsibilities on behalf of the iris states that have the ultimate province to enforce their legal nucleotide which can be a combination of the external conventions of which the pin state is signer or its own legal base while the embark owner has the ultimate duty to comply with the blend legal bases. figure 1 : Players of the Safety Regime in General Classification Societies Ship Yards Insurance Companies Banks Delegation Ship Operator Flag States Ship Manager Ship Owner Ultimate Responsibility Legal Framework Port State Control Charterer Cargo Owner Ultimate duty Vetting Inspections The course between the actual embark owner, operator or technical foul coach of the vessel is not wholly clear up in shipping and consequently complicates enforcement of the legal instruments. In an feat to gain some penetration into the relationships, data from Lloyd s Register Fairplay was merged with the entire dataset as explained previously. The reason of the universe of the port country dominance regimen derives from the fact that a sealed share of embark owners and pin states use the legal loophole created by the international legal framework and try to save costs by operating below the minimum condom standards. This can cause accidents and damage to the environment, the cargo and human lives. According to the OECD the percentage of sub-standard ships in the world commercial fleet is estimated to be between 10-15 % 5. The industry solution to this problem is represented by the vet inspections which are performed on vegetable oil tankers, chemical tankers and majority carriers. The vetting inspections create a impregnable commercial incentive for the ship owner to comply to the vetting inspection requirements since the result of these inspections will determine if the ship gets cargo or not. 3 united nations : United Nations, IMO : Intern. Maritime Organization, ILO : Intern. Labor Organization 4 This could be for example the acquis communautaire for the EU or OPA 90 for the US or any early state specific legislation 5 Peijs, K. ( 2003 ). Ménage a trois. speech at Mare Forum ( November 2003 : Amsterdam ) 2

3 The diverse types of inspections that are performed on ships including port express control inspections will be explained in detail late on. Port State command can be seen as a last resource of base hit to eliminate deficient ships from the seas. Worldwide, there are presently ten safety regimes in topographic point to cover most of the coastal states. Those regimes are as follows : 1. Europe and North Atlantic ( Paris MoU ) 2. asia and the Pacific ( Tokyo MoU ) 3. Latin America ( Acuerdo de Viña del Mar ) 4. Caribbean ( Caribbean MoU ) 5. West and Central Africa ( Abuja MoU ) 6. Black Sea ( Black Sea MoU ) 7. Mediterranean ( Mediterranean MoU ) 8. amerind Ocean ( amerind Ocean MoU ) 9. arabian States of the Gulf ( Riyadh MoU ) 10. US ( US Coast Guard ) 1.2. overview of Inspections in the name of Safety The keep up segment will provide a short overview of the different kind of inspections and surveys that are carried out on ships besides port state control inspections. An overview of the sum exposure to inspections is given in Figure 2. figure 2 : drumhead of full Inspection and Audit Exposure 6 reservoir : compiled by writer from assorted legal sources and inspections The inspections originate from respective sources and are as follows : Port state control inspections and flag state operate inspections 6 note : CAS = Condition Assessment Scheme, ESP = Enhanced Survey Program, CAP = Condition Assessment Program 3 4 ISM and ISPS audits due to statutory requirements and which are silent sometimes performed by the flag states but most of the time besides delegated to recognized classification societies Classification surveys on behalf of flag states and to remain in classify 7 policy companies such as P & I Clubs for policy coverage purposes Industry inspections such as vetting inspections performed on vegetable oil tankers, chemical tankers, boast carriers and bulk carriers on behalf of oil majors or other cargo owners or on behalf of the ship owner. ( CDI, OCIMF/SIRE, Rightship, Oil Majors ) commercial incentives : These inspections are on request of the ship owner in order to obtain a quality certificate which will then help in obtaining commercial incentives 1.3. mandate Inspections/Surveys/Audits Port country control and ease up state inspections cover the statutory requirements. Classification societies perform most of the surveys based on the statutory requirements and by mandate of a pin state. The IMO has tried to synchronize the assorted types of inspections and in perfume, four types of mandatary inspections can be identified and are shown in the graph which covers the inspection areas listed next to the inspection types. Depending on the type of survey ( e.g. initial, annual, renewal, etc. ) the contentedness and intensity of the inspection areas is changed accordingly. An initial survey is a complete inspection before the vessel comes into service. In addition to the compulsory inspection types and areas, two compulsory survey programs are identified and are besides normally provided by the categorization societies. The first one is CAS ( Condition Assessment Scheme ) based on Marpol and the moment is the ESP ( Enhanced Survey Program ) based on SOLAS. The Condition Assessment Scheme originated from an amendment to Annex I of Marpol Annex I ( Regulation 13G ) and can be applied to unmarried hull tankers above 15 years of historic period. It is intended to complement the requirements of the Enhanced Survey Program of SOLAS which applies to bulk carriers and oil tankers. Both require a different oscilloscope of review depending on the old age of the vessel including thickness measurements and rate the coat conditions of the tanks as GOOD, FAIR and POOR which is sometimes authoritative information for vetting inspections. In ordering to facilitate the assorted compulsory inspections/survey types shown in Figure 2 and which need to be carried out, the IMO established the Harmonized System of Survey second and Certification which can be seen in summarize translation in table 1 8 where the postdate abbreviations are used 9 : A annual : general inspection of the items relating to the certificate to ensure that they have been maintained and remain satisfactory for the service for which the transport is intended. P Periodical or I – intermediate : inspection of the items related to the certificate in order to ensure that they are in satisfactory conditions and fit for the service for which the ship is intended. It is a more detailed inspection compared to the annual inspection and is called periodic with citation to the radio equipment and intermediate for all other types of surveys. R Renewal : same as periodical but more detailed and leads to the issue of a newly certificate and normally involves dry dock. 7 a transport does not necessary have to be in class in order to trade but it is highly commend. 8 extract from IMO Resolution A 746 ( 18 ), page 246 and amendment 9 Based on IMO Resolution A.746 ( 18 ), page 151 and amendment 4 5 table 1 : drumhead of Harmonized System of Survey and Certification Years Months Certificates/Inspection Areas Passenger Ship Safety Cert. R R R R R CS Safety Equipment Cert. A A or P P or A A R CS Safety Radio Certificate. P P P P R SC Safety Construction Cert. A A or I I or A A R CF Gas ( IGC/GC ) A A or I I or A A R CF Chemical ( IBC/BCH ) A A or I I or A A R Load Line Certificate A A A A R IOPP ( Marpol Annex I ) A A or I I or A A R IPP ( Marpol Annex II ) A A or I I or A A R Based on IMO Resolution A 746 ( 18 ) Abbreviations : CS = Cargo Ship, CF = Certificate of Fitness, IOPP = Intern. Oil Prevention Pollution Certificate, IPP = Intern. Pollution Prevention Certificate for Carriage of Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk The table shows the clock periods and within which time periods the unlike types of surveys can be conducted. It allows a harmonize set about between the respective SOLAS and Marpol requirements. passenger vessels have to follow rigorous survey schemes ( renewal surveys ) than other embark types and a renewal sketch has to be carried out each year versus every five years. Intermediate surveys come into the video between the 2 north dakota and 3 rd class in order to decrease the inspection clock required for a wide renewal survey. Besides the items listed above, two types of audits are identified in Figure 2 – the ISM ( International Safety Management ) audit and the ISPS ( International Ship and Port Security ) audit which are both SOLAS requirements. This certificate is split into a shipboard separate and a company part where the shipboard separate has to be completed every five years with one average audit half manner ). Some pin administrations have not yet authorized classification societies to perform these audits but many flag states have done so and this sphere is consequently besides widely covered by categorization societies Non Mandatory Inspections Cargo owners have considerable power through their vet inspections for certain ship types ( oil tankers, chemical tankers, boast carriers and dry majority carriers ). sometimes these inspections originate from the cargo owner or sometimes the embark owner will ask for the inspection in order to show a certain quality level for a potential cargo owner. Going through an inspection does not necessarily mean the ship is accepted for cargo. It becomes clear from the graph that the target embark types are chemical tankers, anoint tankers, accelerator carriers and majority carriers for the industry inspections while inspections based on statutory requirements are valid for all ship types. The assorted inspection systems do reference each other but there is no cross-recognition. The follow paragraph will describe the systems further. CDI ( Chemical Industry Institute ) : CDI inspections originate from the ship owner and are therefore own and paid by the embark owner. The owner requests a CDI inspection and the examiner is appointed to the vessel. Inspections are based on a standardized questionnaire covering all areas of shipboard operations and are split up into statutory requirements ( based on the external conventions ), required ( as per industry Code of Practice ) and desired ( required by CDI participants or users of the reports ) requirements. An inspection normally takes around 8-10 hours where particular 5 6 emphasis is placed on cargo operations and the competence of gang. CDI inspections are chiefly performed on chemical tankers. After the inspection, the report is uploaded to the CDI system and the transport owner can provide comments to the inspection results. After that, the ship owner can decide if the report goes alive or not and becomes visible for the CDI users. SIRE ( Ship Inspection Report Program ) and inspection from Oil Majors : sire inspections are performed by OCIMF ( Oil Companies International Marine Forum ) and originate from cargo owners. The inspectors are appointed by OCIMF and the information is however owned by the cargo owner but partially made available to other OCIMF members who can obtain parts of the inspection results for a fee. The inspections besides cover more or less the same areas as CDI with a heavy influence on cargo operations and can take 8 to 10 hours. ship Owners have some time to comment to the issued reputation before it becomes available on-line. These types of vetting inspections are chiefly for oil tankers. While the standardize questionnaire serves as a basis, some oil majors have extra requirements and will add these requirements during an inspection which can be confusing for the embark owners and their crew since no split between statutory requirements and other requirements is made. In addition, oil majors normally perform their own inspections where the basic requirements are according to the SIRE inspections but extra requirements per oil major are added to the inspection and are not published in the SIRE reputation. Rightship : Rightship is a rank system which combines data obtained through vetting inspections, port state control, casualties, ship particular data and transport owner information. It ranks vessels according to a rat score ( 1 to 5 stars where 5 stars represents a very effective vessel with first gear risk ). It is based on a joint venture between BHP Billiton Freight trade and Logistics and Rio Tinto Shipping. The inspections cover tankers and bulge carriers but are primarily for dry majority carriers. A Rightship inspection can take from 8 to 48 hours and covers all aspects of shipboard operations in addition to ship structure and cargo treatment equipment including hatch covers which is important for dry bulk carriers. Inspectors perform ballast water tank inspections and evaluate the conditions of the cargo holds. Greenaward : The final kind of inspection that is performed on vessels ( oil tankers ) originates from the Greenaward Foundation. These inspections are paid by the ship owner. An initial inspection will take approx. 9 hours and cover all aspects of shipboard operations. In addition to the shipboard audit, an position audit ( 2 days ) is performed to evaluate the shore based management systems and documentation to the vessels. After successful completion, the embark receives a certificate ( Greenaward ) and the transport owner can obtain discounts on harbor dues from ports participating in the platform. Once the vessel is Greenaward Certified, it needs to undergo annual or intermediate surveys to remain certifiable. The Greenaward Foundation is a non-profit foundation. Over the years, the Greenaward Certificate is not so far formally recognized by port department of state control regimes. The approach is more arrant and includes shore-side and ship-side elements of the operations. In addition to the statutory prerequisite for CAS and the ESP, some oil majors ask a ship owner to participate in CAP ( Condition Assessment Program ) for either hull or machinery. Those programs are offered by classification societies and are strictly voluntary and provide the ship owner with a rate ( CAP 1, 2 or 3 where CAP 1 act the best evaluation ) which is significant for some anoint majors. There is an overlap of CAP with CAS where the main difference is that CAS is a statutory necessity and its end 6 7 users are the flag states while CAP is a voluntary broadcast required by oil majors who decides on the minimal of the CAP military rank Comparison of Inspection Areas The future segment will provide a comparison between the versatile inspections ( excluding ISPS ) that are performed on the vessels and explained previously. It will merely concentrate on inspections performed on ships and only highlight the main areas and items that are inspected in comparison with each other. The inspection matrix can be seen in table 2 for easier reference point and was compiled based on the experience the writer collected by observing some inspections and the check-lists of some of the inspectors. The caption and coloring material gull for the table is provided here below : adam radius iodine s = contribution of inspection round = referenced during inspection = actual physical inspection/testing/interviews = depends on site, for class on the type of surveil ( annual, intermediate, renewal ) The table is split into the chief areas of inspection such as an administrative separate, surviving and working conditions onboard the ship, the guard management system, areas related to safety and fire appliances, navigation and communication, ship and cargo operations including befoulment prevention, machinery related areas and stability and structural related areas. The informant of inspection is listed when applicable which can be a combination of the external conventions plus pin state requirements and extra industry requirements besides the statutory requirements. next, the parties performing the inspections are identified and their coverage is indicated. The survive column provides guidance on the gang that is involved in the inspections. For some vet inspections and class surveys, the ship superintendent will normally besides be onboard the vessel to assist the crew. The inspection normally starts with a inadequate brief of the chief and inspection of the ship randomness certificates and crew certificates. This is followed by a deck circle starting from the peak ( bridge ) down to the main deck areas with stops at the life boats, condom lockers, fire active equipment. The bridge will besides cover more detail questions about passage plan, chart corrections and the check of the navigational equipment, lights and radio equipment. Deck rounds can entail stops at the rouge cabinet, the CO2 room ( if applicable ), storage location for Acetylene and Oxygen Cylinders, the pump room ( if applicable ), the emergency generator, check of fire hoses and lifebuoys, mooring arrangements and winches adenine well as visits to the forepeak. The survive section of the inspection normally covers the cargo manipulate room and the engine room with the screen of the emergency burn pump and hand brake steering gear and a general polish around the engine room including the areas used for welding. If ballast resistor water cooler inspections or inspections of the cargo holds are performed, the examiner will announce this in the begin of the inspection so that it can be prepared consequently. It is not easy to access ballast water tanks or cargo holds during normal cargo operations. 7 8 table 2 : inspection Matrix – Main Areas of Inspection in Comparison Note : Compiled by writer Party performing the inspection/survey/audit Inspection Matrix – Main Areas of Inspection Source of Inspection Port & Flag State or Class Industry Registration & Administration ( Certificates ) International Conventions ( statutory ) Flag State Add. industry Requirements Port State ( more detailed insp. ) Flag State Class Surveys ISM ( stress on the organization ) average Time onboard ( hour. ) Statutory Certificates respective x gas constant gas constant roentgen r radius r radius Crew Certificates ( plus Endorsements ) SOLAS/STCW x radius radius r gas constant roentgen gas constant gas constant Crew Nationality x roentgen Medicals x roentgen radius r r r gas constant roentgen early Certificates for Equipment Testing assorted x r gas constant gas constant radius radius radius r former Port State Control/Flag State Reports x roentgen roentgen roentgen roentgen r roentgen Vetting Inspection Reports x r r Living and Working Conditions Accommodation ILO x x x x x x x Food ( Inspection of Freezers and Galley ) ILO x x x x x x x Living Conditions/Public Spaces ILO x x x x x x x Rest Periods and Watch Keeping Hours STCW x radius radius gas constant r roentgen x roentgen Safety Signs, Protection Equipment SOLAS x x x x x x x x Gas Detection and Calibration SOLAS/ISM x x i x ten x x x Decontamination showers and eye-lotion on pack of cards SOLAS/ISM x x i x adam x x x Mooring Arrangements Safe & Maintained SOLAS/ISM x x x x x x x x x Hospital and Medical Attention x x x x x x x x x Insurance ( P & I Clubs ) CDI/OCIMF Rightship Greenaward ( Shipside Part ) Ship Crew Involved Master, Chief Officer Chief Officer, Third Officer, Cook 9 note : Compiled by author Party performing the inspection/survey/audit Inspection Matrix – Main Areas of Inspection Source of Inspection Port & Flag State or Class Industry Management ISM International Conventions ( statutory ) Safety Management System/Master ‘s Authority SOLAS/ISM x gas constant r one r r gas constant one Safety & Environmental Policy SOLAS/ISM x r r iodine r gas constant gas constant one DoC Company and Designated Person Ashore SOLAS/ISM x roentgen gas constant iodine r x r one Company Internal Audits SOLAS/ISM x r r iodine r x r one Records of Incidents/Near Misses/Accidents SOLAS/ISM x r r iodine x x radius i Maintenance Routines, Non-conformities SOLAS/ISM x gas constant gas constant i r x roentgen iodine Operational Safety – base hit Procedures ( Hot Work, Entry into enclose spaces ) SOLAS/ISM x roentgen gas constant i r r radius one Safety, Fire and Abandon Ship Drills SOLAS/ISM x i ( s ) i ( second ) roentgen roentgen x gas constant one Onboard Communication satisfactory x x x x x x x Crew Familiarization ISM x x one r adam one x Company Drug and Alcohol Policy and Testing x gas constant x gas constant x Crew Working Experience x x one x Manning and discipline Policy x radius x iodine x Security Related Items SOLAS/ISPS x x x x x Safety and Fire Appliances SOLAS Training Manuals SOLAS x x x x x x x x x Muster Lists and Emergency Instructions SOLAS x x x one x x x x x Lifesaving Appliances ( Lifejackets, Immersion Suits, etc ) SOLAS x one i i x one i x ten Lifeboat, Life rafts, Equipment and Launching SOLAS x one i i x i i x x Flag State Add. industry Requirements Port State ( more detailed insp. ) Flag State Class Surveys ISM ( stress on the system ) insurance ( P & I Clubs ) CDI/OCIMF Rightship Greenaward ( Shipside Part ) Ship Crew Involved Master, Chief Officer, Third Officer Chief Officer, Third Officer 10 note : Compiled by author Party performing the inspection/survey/audit Inspection Matrix – Main Areas of Inspection Source of Inspection Port & Flag State or Class Industry International Conventions ( statutory ) Rescue Boat and equipment SOLAS x x x i x adam x x x Pilot Ladder, Embarkation Ladders for Lifeboats SOLAS x one i i x i i x x Oxygen & Acetylene Storage, CO2 room SOLAS ten iodine i i x i i x x Fire Control Plan SOLAS x r r i x radius r r r Fire Fighting Equipment and Detection SOLAS x one i i x i i x x Fireman ‘s outfit, breathing apparatus, air bottles, EEBD SOLAS x x x i x ten x x x Fire/Foam Hydrants SOLAS x x x iodine x adam x x x Industry Guidelines/Publications x x x iodine x Navigation and Communication Company Navigation Procedures STCW x x x x x x x x x Bridge Standing Orders SOLAS x x x x x x x x x Passage Planning STCW x x x x x x x x x Chart Corrections SOLAS x x x x x x x x x Nautical Publications up to date versatile x x x x x x x x x x Navigational Equipment Working ( GPS, Speed Log, Radar, Echo Sounder, Compass, Navtex etc. ) SOLAS x x x i x ten x x x Dead man Alarm ( when applicable ) x ten x x x x x x x Guidelines for the prevention of fatigue x gas constant Crew knows how to operate equipment STCW x x x x x x x x x VDR/AIS SOLAS x x x one x ten x x Compass Error Log STCW x x x x x x x x Flag State Add. industry Requirements Port State ( more detailed insp. ) Flag State Class Surveys ISM ( vehemence on the arrangement ) indemnity ( P & I Clubs ) CDI/OCIMF Rightship Greenaward ( Shipside Part ) Ship Crew Involved Chief Officer, second base Officer

11 note : Compiled by generator Party performing the inspection/survey/audit Inspection Matrix – Main Areas of Inspection Source of Inspection Port & Flag State or Class Industry International Conventions ( statutory ) Compass Deviation Card SOLAS x x x x x x x x Navigation Lights COLREG x x x i x one x adam GMDSS Operations and Testing SOLAS/STCW x x x i x ten x x EPIRB and SART SOLAS x x x i x x x x Ship and Cargo Operations including Pollution Prevention Loading and Stability Manuals IBC/BCH x radius r r x r radius x x Cargo loading limitations IBC/BCH x gas constant gas constant radius x radius gas constant x x Damage/survival constancy guidelines IBC/BCH x r gas constant radius x roentgen roentgen x x Procedures and Arrangement Manual MARPOL x roentgen r gas constant x roentgen radius x x High level alarms operative IBC x x x iodine x ten x x x Bilge Alarms SOLAS x iodine x iodine x one i x one Portable or fixed natural gas detection systems SOLAS x x x iodine x x x x x Inert gas system ( for oil tankers ) or early systems to blanket cargo ( e.g. nitrogen ) x ten x x x x x x 15 ppm Alarm MARPOL x iodine i i x i i x i Oil-Mist Detector SOLAS x one i i x one i i i SOPEP, SMPEP MARPOL x radius r radius x gas constant gas constant x x Cargo Record Book, Oil Record Book, Garbage RB MARPOL x gas constant roentgen roentgen x roentgen r x x Tank clean and washing including COW MARPOL x r roentgen x x x x x Industry Guidelines/Publications x x x x x Cargo Operations in General including Pump Room assorted x x x x one x ten Cargo Transfer Operations diverse x x x x one x ten Flag State Add. industry Requirements Port State ( more detail insp. ) Flag State Class Surveys ISM ( vehemence on the arrangement ) policy ( P & I Clubs ) CDI/OCIMF Rightship Greenaward ( Shipside Part ) Ship Crew Involved Chief Officer, Chief Engineer 12 bill : Compiled by author Party performing the inspection/survey/audit Inspection Matrix – Main Areas of Inspection Source of Inspection Port & Flag State or Class Industry International Conventions ( statutory ) Fuel Testing, sulfur content measurement ten radius Anti-fouling system for hull coat ( TBT spare ) MARPOL x radius r r Additional Oil Pollution Prevention Measures x roentgen gas constant Machinery Related Areas including Engine Room Engine Room Standing Orders SOLAS/ISM x x x x x x x x x Planned Maintenance System SOLAS x r gas constant one x r one x ten Emergency Steering Gear SOLAS x i i i i i i i Emergency Fire Pump SOLAS x one i i i i i i Emergency Generator SOLAS x i i i i i i i Emergency Batteries SOLAS x x x x x x x x Testing of Black Out and Reverse Polarity one ( s ) one i ( sulfur ) i ( s ) x overall Cleanliness and Appearance of ER x x x x x x x x Stability & Structure Enhanced Survey Program, Thickness Measurements SOLAS x radius r iodine ( randomness ) radius radius r r gas constant CAS ( Condition Assessment Scheme ) MARPOL x gas constant roentgen one ( south ) roentgen gas constant radius r gas constant Inspections of Ballast Tanks, Cargo Tanks, Void Spaces, Cofferdams for Condition of Coating/Corrosion SOLAS/MARPOL x r one ( second ) roentgen radius ten iodine r Rating System for Condition of Coating/Corrosion as per ESP/CAS x r radius iodine ( south ) radius gas constant roentgen i r Conditions of Hull and Superstructure ( e.g Hatch covers ) Good/Fair/Poor x x x i ( s ) ten one ( s ) x iodine i Class Status Report/Outstanding Class Conditions and Memoranda x gas constant gas constant roentgen r radius roentgen gas constant Flag State Add. industry Requirements Port State ( more detail insp. ) Flag State Class Surveys ISM ( stress on the organization ) indemnity ( P & I Clubs ) CDI/OCIMF Rightship Greenaward ( Shipside Part ) Ship Crew Involved Chief Engineer, First or Second Engineer Master, Chief Officer, Chief Engineer 13 The inspection is normally finished up with a turn of the galley storage areas for food ( dry store, freezers, etc. ) and the crew mess and day room. One can see from the board, that certificates are referenced by everybody and that the main areas of inspections are more or less covered by all types of inspections. Living and Working Conditions of the crew are chiefly covered by the inspection rounds and the actual living quad of the crew ( their cabins and other facilities ) is hardly inspected The diligence inspections such as CDI/OCIMF, Rightship and Greenaward pay more attention to ship and cargo operations and spend well more fourth dimension with crew members to interview them on operational issues. These items are primarily referenced during port and sag express inspections. Drills might be performed by some safety regimes such as the USCG or flag states but are not performed frequently by other inspectors and the inspection of the lifeboat chiefly emphasizes on the overall stipulate of the lifeboat, its plunge devices and boarding procedures american samoa well as the lifeboat equipment. The inspection of safety and displace appliances is besides covered by all types of inspections. For some items, the inspection might go into more details and entail the actual test of the equipment which is merely performed during class surveys while early will only refer to expiry dates of the last survey/inspection that was performed shore side ( e.g. for life rafts ). Items relate to seafaring and communication is besides covered by all inspection types including chart corrections, passage plan, nautical publications and the overall mental picture of the military officer on determine with reference to the handle of the equipment ( radar, echo sound, radio equipment, etc. ) unmanageable to inspect is the safety management organization since it draws from all areas. All inspections do cover some ISM relate questions and the actual validity of the presented paperwork entirely becomes discernible after a general deck round and interview with crew members. It might be that the paperwork related to ISM is in conformity but not follow through onboard. Inspection systems such as the vet inspections do emphasize more on this view where Greenaward besides performs company audits shore-side. Authorized categorization societies or flag states perform separate audits to ensure that the condom management system is implemented in practice but inspections due to the clock constraint in conducting surveys is normally only looking at the surface. As mentioned earlier, ballast water tank and cargo holds inspections are unmanageable to perform and are chiefly done by categorization societies. Rightship pays more attention to actual physical inspections while port states will entirely proceed either required by their policies ( e.g. expanded inspections in the EU ) or when perceived necessary. The diverse programs ( ESP, CAS or CAP ) for the conditions of coatings in the ballast tanks and cargo tanks ( when applicable ) are normally only referenced and physical inspections thence are kept to a minimum. The table gives a good indication of some of the overlap of the inspections that are performed on ships from port states, flag states, vetting inspections and other industry inspections. The inspections performed by categorization societies on behalf of the ease up state to a certain extent have a different setting since they are the basis to extend or renew the validity of a certificate and are consequently statutory. The flag submit inspections performed beside the surveys from classification societies chiefly serve as a mean to check the performance of classification societies as a recognized arrangement to conduct these surveys on behalf of the iris state. The system generates a significant sum of inspections performed on vessels with areas that are inspected and re-inspected frequently. In the case of port country control and based on 13 14 the total dataset, one can see the full inspection and detention frequency in Figure 3 which is based on an average of four years 10 since not all regimes provided data for the solid time frame. Based on the 183,819 port state of matter control inspections and 26,020 aggregate ships, this aggregates to 7 inspections within four years or approx. 1.7 inspections per class per ship. calculate 3 : inspection and Detention Frequency of Vessels ( 1999 to 2004 ) inspection Frequency ( 1999 to 2004 ) detention Frequency ( 1999 to 2004 ) 6 to 10 times 33 % 2 to 5 times 28 % once 15 % 11 to 15 times 18 % 16 to 20 times 5 % more than 20 times 1 % once 66 % doubly 21 % 3 times 7 % 4 and more, 6 % beginning : Knapp ( 2006 ) 2. Summary of Costs of Inspections and Insurance Claims Table 3 and table 4 give an overview of the calculate costs of port submit control inspections and other inspections that are performed onboard ships. The port state control inspections costs are divided into inspection with nothing deficiencies and inspections with deficiencies who might take more sum of fourth dimension onboard the ships. In addition, a 20 % administrative charge 11 is added to the costs. The surveyor costs change from area to country and this change is not taken into consideration since data from 53 countries are in the total port state of matter control inspection dataset. In world, the stage figures might consequently be different but for the aim of this study, the figures should merely give an overall reading on the costs associated with port department of state operate. table 3 : full Estimated Port State Control Inspection Costs ( USD ) # of Inspections # Hours/Insp. Rate total 4 years Per year Per Insp. zero def. 98, , ,038,229 12,509, with def. 84, , ,453,914 16,113, total 183, , ,492,143 28,623, % Admin 137,390,572 34,347, note : 1 hour surveyor = 72 british Pounds 12, 1 GBP = USD, Administrative Costs = +20 %, compiled by generator The estimated inspection costs of a port state operate inspection is USD 747 per inspection or a sum of USD 34,3 million for all types of inspection. Inspections associated with zero deficiencies and without administrative costs are estimated to be at USD 12,5 million per year or USD 50 million for the sum four year period. Looking at the sum estimate costs 10 The total measure of years for each government was converted into month of inspections and then converted into full total of years ( 291 total months/12 = years/6 regimes = 4 years ) 11 as per information obtained from the Maritime and Coast Guard Agency, UK 12 as per information obtaine from the Maritime and Coast Guard Agency, UK 14 15 per class per vessel and including shore based costs for ship owners and operators, the consequence can be seen in mesa 4 in USD Table 4 : compendious of Inspection Frequency, Allocated Time and Costs ( USD/year ) Inspection Type Estim. Frequency yearly* ) Time ( hour ) Allocated Onboard Estim. Costs Shore Side/Insp. Estim. Costs Ship Side/Insp. Estim. full cost Per Year Port State Control ,070 Flag State Control ,188 Class Annual Survey, ,879 ISM Audit, ,584 Insurance ( P & I Club ), ,744 Industry Inspections : Tankers, ,702 Industry Inspections : Bulk, ,816 Industry Inspections : other total Tankers ,248 2,739 47,166 full Dry Bulk ,835 2,739 24,280 total other Ship Types ,585 2,173 17,464 note : compiled by writer, * ) the ISM Audits and P & I Club Inspections are not performed annual ; For Industry Inspections, administrative dowry of 20 % are added which might be higher in reality due to solid amount of readiness work The datum is a drumhead from several sources from the industry such as classification societies and ship owners of which the companies would like to remain anonymous. The table is split up into three groups. The estimate full frequency of inspection for tankers ( oil and chemical tankers ) is estimated to be at 11 inspections per year which can of course change per ship type and long time of the vessel. As the historic period increases ( above 10 or 15 years ), the frequency of industry inspections can increase. For dry bulk carriers, the inspection frequency is estimated to be 6 inspections and all other transport types, it is estimated to be at 5 inspections. Shore based costs include the costs for the inspections itself including travel expenses arsenic well as an administrative assign of preparing the inspections and to comment on the inspection reports which can take considerable amount of time on the ship operator south or owner mho side. total costs per year per vessel associated with inspections vary from USD 47,000 for tankers to USD 17,500 for other ship types which are not part of the diligence vetting inspection system. These costs represent full costs where the ship owner sulfur assign would be the helping without port express control and the flag submit inspections. It is unmanageable to bring these costs in relation to the costs that are associated with casualties. One attempt was made to gather insurance claim data but entirely two sources from the diligence could be obtained of P & I Clubs 13 who were will to provide claim figures for the years 2000 to 2004 per ship type and title category. An average claim number per ship was calculated and is presented in mesa 5. In reality, the figures are higher than presented in the table due to the fact that the claim figures are based on actual claims above the deductible. The deductible can vary per ship 13 The P & I Clubs regard to remain anonymous. 15 16 type, size or ownership of the vessel. In addition, it varies well between hull and machinery ( H & M ) and other P & I club claims 14. The figures presented in the table can therefore only be seen as a very roughly estimate of the magnitude of casualty claims per ship type. It is unmanageable to compare the costs of inspections with the policy claim costs but an overall comparison per ship type is given in board 6. The solution indicate that the full inspection costs per embark of USD 24,768 seems to be reasonable in relation to the average policy claim costs of USD 97,766 which in world might be an even higher calculate. board 5 : average P & I Club Claim Figures per Vessel and Year ( 2000 to 2004 ) Average claim in USD ( 2000 to 2004 ) Cargo/GA Collision Contact GG & Container 9,794 36,071 18,084 14,396 46,796 16, ,181 41,804 Dry Bulk 14,767 58,311 9,955 11,495 51,078 73, ,399 57,316 Tanker 42,936 88,277 21,079 18, ,016 44, , ,624 Passenger 1,885 56,142 9,209 15,310 18,616 9, , ,961 other 9,231 18, ,446 6,886 38, ,692 91,127 Average/vessel 15,722 51,521 11,761 13,172 79,078 36, ,815 97,766 note : compiled by writer, GA = general average 15, H & M = Hull and Machinery Personnel Pollution other H & M Average ST table 6 : average inspection Costs versus Insurance Claims in USD ( 2000 to 2004 ) In USD per vessel inspection Costs Insurance Claims GG & Container 17,464 41,804 Dry Bulk 24,280 57,316 oil tanker 47, ,624 Passenger 17, ,961 other 17,464 91,127 average per Vessel/year 24,768 97,766 Compiled by generator figure 4 shows the schism up of the inspection costs and insurance claims per ship type in arrange to see the sexual intercourse between the two categories. One can easily see that the percentages are not in pipeline for passenger vessels where the policy claims are substantially higher than the inspection costs. For tankers on the early hand, the higher inspection costs seem to be in line with the insurance claims due to the senior high school costs that are for example involved if contamination is involved in a casualty. It is difficult to conclude if the inspection costs are in relative to the policy claims and if the relative high frequency of inspections on oil and chemical tankers is absolve since the costs of preventing accidents due to inspection are not known. In addition, the indemnity claims costs are in world higher than shown here and alone based on two P & I Clubs. For the regression analysis on casualties and the effect of port 14 As per industry sources, the deductible for Hull and Machinery can be between USD 50,000 to 250,000 and for P & I Clubs between USD 5,000 30,000 for personnel and USD 10,000 to 100,000 for all other claims. 15 legal chief of maritme law according to which all parties in a sea venture proportionately contribution any losses resulting from a volunteer sacrifice of share of the ship or fleet to save the unharmed in an hand brake ( definition from : 16 17 state control in the probability of having a casualty, the indemnity claim costs were not taken into consideration but are based on the earnestness of a casualty rather. calculate 4 : inspection Costs versus Insurance Claims in % to Total 40 % 35 % 30 % 38.1 % 32.0 % 29.0 % 25 % 20 % 19.6 % 18.6 % 15 % 10 % 14.1 % 8.6 % 11.7 % 14.1 % 14.1 % 5 % 0 % GG & Container Dry Bulk Tanker Passenger other inspection costs insurance claims Compiled by generator In order to get an impression about the dispute in insurance claims of vessel that were inspected with vessels that were not inspected, the follow graph should give an mental picture to see the dispute based on claim costs. The graph were produced the following room. The total casualty dataset was combined with the indemnity title costs listed in postpone 5 and then aggregated per IMO phone number in order to obtain an average claim sum per transport since one ship can have more than one type of claim. The solution was then merged with the inspection dataset in order to identify if a embark has been inspected or not inspected by port submit operate. The figures do not match the figures presented in table 6 since they are averages across all ship types and based on the entire fatal accident dataset and not the call information received from the P & I Clubs directly. human body 5 gives an overview of the sum average claims of visit vessels versus not inspected vessels. figure 5 : median Claims of Inspected versus Non-Inspected Vessels Average Insurance Claims 120, ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20, ,672 not PSC Inspected 34,685 PSC Inspected Based on inspections from 1999 to 18 One can easily see that not inspected vessel have higher average call costs than audit vessels. The same applies for Figure 6 for the average claim costs per transport type based on the casualty dataset but using the average claims that were calculated and shown in postpone 5. trope 6 : average Claims of Inspected versus Non-Inspected Vessels per Ship Type 180, , ,916 Average Insurance Claims 140, , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 53,731 25,592 61,065 29,301 31,551 18,935 73,620 81,079 32, ,306 38,866 0 cosmopolitan cargo dry majority container tanker passenger other ST PSC not Inspected PSC Inspected Based on inspections from 1999 to 2004 One can see that the differences between inspected and not inspect vessels is greatest for tankers and other ship types which are well explained with the frequency of inspections performed on oil tankers. 3. The Link between Inspections and Casualties. The datasets used for this analysis comprises data on the global fleet received from Lloyd s Register Fairplay ( 43,817 vessels ), a unite PSC inspection dataset from five regimes 16 of 183,819 inspections ( 26,020 ships ), casualty data from three different sources 17 of approx. 11,701 cases ( 9,589 ships ) and some industry vetting inspection data. The data was combined using the ship sulfur IMO number as a connect and the meter skeletal system is question is from 1999 to 2004 where some of the casualty data extends beyond this time frame. visualize 7 gives on overview of the magnitude of improvement possibilities for targeting vessels. In entire, about 16 % of all audit vessels had zero deficiencies over the time period in question and these ships might have been ships which should not have been targeted ( 4,221 ships ). On the other hand, looking at ships which have been inspected six months prior to a casualty ( 2,321 ships ) where 52.3 % of these vessels had zero deficiencies ( 1,215 ships ) and the rest had deficiencies. This changes the 4,221 ships which should not have been targeted into 3,006 vessels or approx. 501 ships per year. It is further deserving noticing that out of the 1,106 vessels ( 2,321 1,215 ) with deficiencies, 14.6 % were detained ( 162 vessels ) and had a casualty. This share could be understood as 16 Paris MoU, Caribbean MoU, Viña del Mar Agreement on PSC, AMSA and the amerind Ocean MoU 17 IMO, Lloyd s Register Fairplay and LMIU 18

19 ships that have been targeted correctly and identified as sub-standard vessels but for some reason, detention was not sufficient to increase the safety standard of the vessel to prevent a fatal accident. The remaining parcel of the vessels which have been inspected and were deficiencies were found are the vessels where the effect of inspections decreased the probability of a fatal accident which is the overtone effect of the regressions. In issue of vessels, this amounts to approx. 18, vessels or 3,146 ships per class. figure 7 : improvement Areas for PSC eligible ships ( ) group 4 : improve targeting & inspections 3.7 % improve targeting 4.7 % better inspections 4.9 % group 1 : not debatable ships 36.4 % group 3 : inspections with effects 43.1 % group 2 : over targeted ships 6.9 % total Ships : 43,817 bill : Based on alone PSC relevant ships and based on sum clock ensnare ( ) The figure is lone based on ships that are relevant for port submit control ( excluding the fishing fleet > 400gt ) and is a compendious of the total time frame. The graph shows several groups out of which group 1 of about 36 % of the vessels eligible for inspections are identified not to have been baffling over the time menstruation and have besides not been targeted by the regimes in question. About 7 % of the vessels eligible for larboard state control have been targeted over the time human body but did not have a casualty and besides no deficiencies and therefore represent a group of over-inspected vessels ( group 2 ). Group 3 of 43 % of the vessels can be identified to belong to a group where inspections are effective in decreasing the probability of fatal accident where this effect can be measured for very serious casualties and estimated ( depending on the basic embark risk profile ) to be a 5 % decrease per inspection. This category can besides represent far room for improvement but shows that port country control is effective. Group 4 is split into three portions. The first part is 5.3 % of PSC eligible vessels which are the amount of ships that have been targeted correctly but since they had a casualty within six month after the inspection, the enforcement could be improved. The irregular dowry shows 4.7 % of ships which had a fatal accident but were not inspected and where targeting could be improved. last, the last category shows a grey area. In this group, ships had a fatal accident but regardless of the time frame. consequently, inspections and possibly 18 21,880 full inspected ships with no casualty minus 3,006 ships with no deficiencies 19 20 target could be improved. Most improvement to decrease the probability of a casualty can be achieved by concentrating on the categories in group 4 by shifting the emphasis from group 2 to group The Probability of Casualty per Frequency of Inspection This segment will provide the probability of casualty for either inspection or detention. average probabilities are then calculated and presented per frequency of inspection or detention The Selection of Port State Control Relevant Casualties Considerate care was given on the selection of casualties for the analysis. From the casualty dataset within the prison term menstruation 1999 to 2004 of 9,851 cases, the following cases were eliminated. 1. Cases due to extreme weather conditions such as hurricanes, typhoons, gales and very heavy storms 2. Ships attacked by pirates or ships lost due to war 3. Ships involved in a collision with no identified fault Any early many-sided items not relevant to PSC such as drugs found, virus outbreaks of passengers or accidents which happened in dry docks 5. not PSC relevant ships types such as ferries, the fishing flit, tugs or government vessels. The fish fleet cases were kept separate and a separate analysis was performed based only on the fishing flit above 400gt. The remaining 6291 cases concern 6,005 ships when aggregated by IMO number and were then reviewed and re-grouped into the three groups of seriousness as per IMO MSC Circular 953 of December 2000 : very good casualties : casualties to ships which involve sum loss of the ship, loss of life or austere pollution 2. unplayful casualties are casualties to ships which do not qualify as identical serious casualties and which involve ardor, explosion, collision, ground, contact, heavy weather wrong, methamphetamine price, hull crack, or suspected hull defect, etc. resulting in : immobilization of main engines, across-the-board adjustment wrong, severe structural price, such as penetration of the hull under water, etc. rendering the transport bad to proceed, or pollution ( careless of quantity ) ; and/or a breakdown necessitation tow or prop up aid. 3. Less unplayful casualties are casualties to ships which do not qualify as identical serious casualties or serious casualties and for the purpose of recording utilitarian information besides include marine incidents which themselves include hazardous incidents and dear misses Model Description This model will provide the estimated probability ( P ) of a ship having a casualty. The dependent variable ( y ) in this case is casualty or no casualty. In a binary regression, a 19 The designation of no mistake in this event was not straight ahead and some cases still included in the dataset might be ships with no fault and were not eliminated due to lack of exactness of data. 20 as per IMO MSC Circular 953, 14 thorium December 21 latent variable y* gets mapped onto a binomial variable y which can be 1 ( fatal accident ) or 0 ( no casualty ). When this latent variable exceeds a doorway, which is typically equal to 0, it gets mapped onto 1, other wise onto 0. The latent variable itself can be expressed as a standard linear regression exemplary y*i = xi + εi where i denotes ship one. The xi contains independent variables such as senesce, size, iris, classification society or owner, and represents a column vector of stranger parameters ( the coefficients ). The binary arrested development model can be derived as follows : P ( lolo = 1 xi ) = P ( y*i > 0 xi ) = P ( xi + εi > 0 xi ) = P ( εi > – eleven eleven ) = P ( εi xi xi ) The concluding term is equal to the accumulative distribution serve of εi evaluated in xi, or in short : P ( lolo = 1 xi ) = F ( xi ) This officiate F can take many forms and for this cogitation two were considered, namely the accumulative distribution function of the normal distribution ( probit model ) and the accumulative distribution function of the logistic function ( logit model ). The general mannequin can therefore be written in the form of Equation 1 where the term eleven changes according to the model in interrogate and is given in Equation 2. The variables are listed in table 7 for far reference. equation 1 : probability of Casualty east ( xi ) P i = ( x ) 1 + einsteinium one Equation 2 : definition of terminus eleven of Casualty Detailed Model x one = north k= 1 n 5 1 Σ Σ k= 1 1 5, k 1 ln ( age 18, k CL FSInd LIFS one i k, i + + PSC + n iodine 10 k= 1 kilobyte, one Σ 14 ) north CLInd 10, k DH 19 Σ one k= ln ( size ) + normality i OWN + 15 Σ k= 1 19, k + 1 potassium, i 7 one + 15, k DETPS n RS k= 1 kelvin, one Σ thousand, iodine CLWdr, k one n Σ k= 1 ST newton Σ kilobyte, one k= 1 OwnInd one 20, k GR + 8, k + one + 4 FS 12 CODE STInd k, i potassium, one ln ( time i LIOWN 17 i i ) The model produces probabilities on an individual ship level ( one ). The rest of the note is as follows : liter represents the variable star groups, nl is the sum numeral of variables within each group of l and kelvin is an index from 1 to nl. To estimate the coefficients, quasi-maximum 21