I just read this editorial on Marex and have mixed emotions about the subject so I thought it would be a good discussion topic. I have adapted to living and working inside the safety management system bubble but have always questioned if it truly accomplishes much more than keeping a few more people ashore with gainful employment. There has always been more of a focus on how well the paperwork is kept up versus physical inspection of the vessel and the condition of the safety/firefighting equipment. If more time is spent documenting the maintenance of the equipment than actually doing the maintenance, how is that safer?
Now you’re looking at the brown water fleet having to go down the same road with the proposed TSMS and I don’t see that going so well. I actually feel really sorry for any of you that are going to have to toe this line in the near future.
That’s a good article, worth reading. It’s true that mariners in general can’t write procedures. But it’s not just the lack of writing skills. Writing procedures is above the pay grade and skill level of most mariners.
For UTV’s its going to be optional. Coast Guard (document with a TVR) inspection option or TSMS. ( not getting into a lot of details here)
You can have a TSMS onboard even if you choose the Coast Guard option.
With UTV’s the culture shock is really big, just saying the word Subchapter M is enough for a lot of people that have been around for a while to retire. You add to that all the new requirements for STCW and the added courses to renew and a lot of people are not happy about it.
What I have seen with TSMS on mom and pops ops and medium sized companies is that they are throwing the captains under a bus with the TSMS.
Few resources, they just want to apply in the TSMS what good for the company and crews are not awarenof the requirements of the TSMS.
Its just a thing of time, it doesnt matter what company you decide to work for, all of then are going to have a TSMS or use a TVR or a combination of it.
Company are the ones that will squeeze this until the last drop in order to change the way they have been operating for years. Dont talk to them about overhead and increased operating costs…
My Company rolled out their SMS System in the 90’s. Most of us on the Vessels looked at it as a way for the Office to Micro-Manage us and for a while it was used as a tool to mess with us more than a tool to help us do our jobs safely.
This slowly changed as they came out with updates that included input from the Sea Going Crews. That made it more user friendly.
People used to think I was nuts as I check all of the binders each and every tour for updates. This was done for a couple of reasons. The main reason was that I had reliefs that sometimes “forgot” to insert any revisions that came out.
Here is an example of something that a lot of CE’s were hit on during Vettings. It stated that ALL Gauges (both Electrical and Mechanical were to be checked for accuracy every year.
Once I read this requirement, I sent in a Req. for all of the meters and certified gauges to complete this task. When my PE called wanting to know why I needed all of these (as they were not cheap) I referred him to the section in the SMS that showed the above requirement. He approved my request and also asked my not to share this information with any other CE’s.
All was good for a year until I sent all of these Certified Meters and Gauges out to be recertified. He was not happy when I told him that this was the ONLY way that I could comply with “Our” SMS Guidelines. When he said what else could be done, I said change the SMS, which they did.
This is just an example of the Office writing these requirements and then bitching when they have to lay out the cash for us to meet them.
[QUOTE=Tugs;192672]My Company rolled out their SMS System in the 90’s. Most of us on the Vessels looked at it as a way for the Office to Micro-Manage us and for a while it was used as a tool to mess with us more than a tool to help us do our jobs safely.
This slowly changed as they came out with updates that included input from the Sea Going Crews. That made it more user friendly.
People used to think I was nuts as I check all of the binders each and every tour for updates. This was done for a couple of reasons. The main reason was that I had reliefs that sometimes “forgot” to insert any revisions that came out.
Here is an example of something that a lot of CE’s were hit on during Vettings. It stated that ALL Gauges (both Electrical and Mechanical were to be checked for accuracy every year.
Once I read this requirement, I sent in a Req. for all of the meters and certified gauges to complete this task. When my PE called wanting to know why I needed all of these (as they were not cheap) I referred him to the section in the SMS that showed the above requirement. He approved my request and also asked my not to share this information with any other CE’s.
All was good for a year until I sent all of these Certified Meters and Gauges out to be recertified. He was not happy when I told him that this was the ONLY way that I could comply with “Our” SMS Guidelines. When he said what else could be done, I said change the SMS, which they did.
This is just an example of the Office writing these requirements and then bitching when they have to lay out the cash for us to meet them.[/QUOTE]
This is a good point.
I have also found that over time and about 5 or 6 versions deep with several CAR’s filed, things can improve. This is all predicated on the office seeking the vessel’s input as to how the SMS can be improved.
My biggest problem with any of these systems is and will continue to be that the office will often add complication to something that was already working fine which doesn’t replace anything else, just adds onto the pile. These are typically not sent out to the vessel’s for comment prior to implementation and typically don’t follow any new or impending regulations. They also usually reek of a new office employee trying to show their worth.
Your comment about checking for updates every time you rotate back is very astute and in keeping with the best qualities of seamanship. I go through all the paperwork I can in the first few days back aboard to make sure I’m not caught with my pants down during an audit or port state inspection. You really will have no excuse besides “I didn’t bother to look.”
Well this thread died quickly. I was under the impression that SMS is a very important part of everyday operations. At least it is at the company I work for. All of the places I’ve work for in the last 15 years all had an SMS in play. I generally don’t have any issues with the current SMS I deal with daily. As stated above, the maintenance and safety aspects of such a system require the spending of $$ which JOE boss obviously doesn’t ever like to do. I could care less really, I follow the SMS and report what I’m required to report and if the company chooses not to deal with my findings it’s on them and not me. If anyone is interested or has anything to add in terms of drills on your vessels, that would be a big help. For example, what do does your company SMS say for vessel drill requirements and drill topics and structure? This topic was loosely discussed a while back on another thread but that thread also died quickly. I personally feel we don’t drill and train nearly enough. I’m one of the mates onboard and clearly I have no say in what happens on my little ATB.
RubberRib is right on here. We don’t train or drill enough. It’s required to do drills. With SubM you have to do at least one drill per week (if I’m not mistaken). The crew are generally willing to conduct them, but you do have the occasional push back. Drills should involve everyone and even the deckhands should have a go at running a drill. I say do as many as you can. It’ll create better sailors and better crew adhesion. Just remember to document all of them, so Management stays happy.
I was involved in writing an SMS for a company a decade ago while i was sailing as captain. It was brutal. I couldn’t help but think, “Why am I making myself do all this bullshit? There’s got to be a better way!” I’m involved now with a company who farmed out the writing of the SMS, but I have an issue with non-mariners setting the policy. I’m shoreside now (technically) but get out and do reliefs so I feel like I know what the crew will do and what they will immediately blow off.
There are better ways. I’m looking software that will be easier on the crews; make it easier on management; and probably Most Importantly hold the correct person accountable to see that the work is completed and the SMS is adhered too. There’s nothing more embarrassing during an audit than to be standing in an office with an auditor who flew across the country or from overseas and have him ask “why are you not following through on calibrating your gauges? It says in your SMS that you are to do this annually.” - to use the example Tugs gave above. Well it would be more embarrassing if the Chief spoke up and said that the office wouldn’t do it because it cost too much. If you’re telling the guys it needs to be done they will hold you to it eventually. If the task is truly unnecessary then there should be an avenue to amend the SMS. A good SMS should be a Living and fluid thing with input from the people who use it most. Not a burden. Life at sea is filled with enough hardship.
RubberRhib is right. This thread needs a lot more input from everyone (crews and office types).
As a former mariner turned technical author I’m always interested in discussions about formal documents, and would like to point out that having a safety management system is only part of the job, although this depends a bit on what you think is to do with being safe, and therefore at what level you pitch the document. Back in the late 1980s I had been a captain in the offshore industry and even though 30 years had passed since the Ebb Tide there was no proper guidance on how the job should be done, so I wrote a books about it called “Supply Ship Operations”. Today it is getting a bit long in the tooth, but for the third edition I included a chapter called “The Management of Safety” in which there is quite a bit said about documentation. I have chosen one paragraph which I think contributes to the discussion.
“Those operating support vessels should be able to look to their owners, or managers for guidance as to how they should be operating their ships. Sadly such information is seldom provided. There is a tendency for ship-owners to expect their crews to magically know how to do the job, and therefore any instructions will be extremely limited, and will probably be restricted to some general statements which have been developed purely to fulfil the requirements of the ISM Code. Even if guidance exists is will almost certainly pre-suppose that the crew already know how to do the job.”
Honestly, why should we expect the guys working on any marine object just to be able to do it safely and efficiently without any formal guidance. A safety management system should at least provide part of that guidance.
[QUOTE=Steveoh;192740]RubberRib is right on here. We don’t train or drill enough. It’s required to do drills. With SubM you have to do at least one drill per week (if I’m not mistaken). The crew are generally willing to conduct them, but you do have the occasional push back. Drills should involve everyone and even the deckhands should have a go at running a drill. I say do as many as you can. It’ll create better sailors and better crew adhesion. Just remember to document all of them, so Management stays happy.
I was involved in writing an SMS for a company a decade ago while i was sailing as captain. It was brutal. I couldn’t help but think, “Why am I making myself do all this bullshit? There’s got to be a better way!” I’m involved now with a company who farmed out the writing of the SMS, but I have an issue with non-mariners setting the policy. I’m shoreside now (technically) but get out and do reliefs so I feel like I know what the crew will do and what they will immediately blow off.
There are better ways. I’m looking software that will be easier on the crews; make it easier on management; and probably Most Importantly hold the correct person accountable to see that the work is completed and the SMS is adhered too. There’s nothing more embarrassing during an audit than to be standing in an office with an auditor who flew across the country or from overseas and have him ask “why are you not following through on calibrating your gauges? It says in your SMS that you are to do this annually.” - to use the example Tugs gave above. Well it would be more embarrassing if the Chief spoke up and said that the office wouldn’t do it because it cost too much. If you’re telling the guys it needs to be done they will hold you to it eventually. If the task is truly unnecessary then there should be an avenue to amend the SMS. A good SMS should be a Living and fluid thing with input from the people who use it most. Not a burden. Life at sea is filled with enough hardship.
RubberRhib is right. This thread needs a lot more input from everyone (crews and office types).[/QUOTE]
I personally applaud you for being the kind of office guy who knows and understands what the crew and captain are dealing with. This is the kind of discussion I was hoping to open up when I started this thread.
The “living document” idea has been bandied about for years. I just wish there was more exhaling versus inhaling when it comes to additions versus subtractions with the documents. Safety culture has its benefits, but sometimes inexperienced people can add unnecessary complexity onto already existing systems to get their name out there within the corporate structure. This leaves the shipboard management team holding the bag and wondering when will it end?