Davidson made the wrong choice.

1 Like


I’m my experience that rarely happens.

I’m not saying it never happens anywhere but I’ve never seen or heard of a DPA conducting an internal audit.

1 Like

You forgot to quote the rest of my post:

Partial quotes may convey what YOU want to say, not what the poster say.


I don’t expect that works very well because in my experience none of those officers want to tell the auditor any problems like that. They want the audit to go perfectly with no comments or observations so they won’t volunteer information like that.

1 Like

That is not my experience and I have been doing this for a VERY long time with officers of many different nationalities and on ships under different flags and ownership.

I obviously can not know if some are not telling the truth, but a lot are, incl. some Americans.

You should get out more to see the world. It is not as cowed by authorises as you think.

I’m glad.

You really need to stop making digs at people like this. It’s not conducive to having a discussion.

1 Like

I get my portion of digs from you and others. You first.

1 Like

Most people only do it to you in retaliation. You started on this forum insulting everyone and you have yet to stop. You constantly make great posts then end then with insults directed at individuals or the country the majority of us reside in.

I didn’t include the full post because it’s just about the nuts and bolts of SMS audits and so forth which are well understood.

An unidentified risk is not going to be picked up by a routine audit as a non-conformance because it is not included in the SMS.

For example if someone identifies cyber-security as a risk that’s not included in the SMS it will not be a non-conformance on the ship because there is no procedure to conform to.

It seems simple for the office to shift the responsibility onto the crew. I have a monthly boilerplate safety PM. The job wanted to test all the quick closing valves, test all the e-stops, test all tank level alarms, all the other misc. alarms…

Do I complete it all to the letter? No, I dont have the time. The ship is underway for 75% of the time, not to mention all the normal planned and unplanned maintenance. I kind of have to pick and choose what I think is important, and what I can accomplish.

So the office gets their little box checked saying I did every last safety test/shutdown. They can show the auditors the maintenance plan with the checked off boxes. Anything that goes wrong is the fault of the crew for pencil whipping the maintenance plan.


I’m envious. Mine is somewhere around 90% and boy do those inspections, tests, and audits during the other 10% of the time suuuuucccckkkkk…

1 Like

You say from your experience that rarely happens. I have seen this on several occasions and on different vessels with different companies that are ISM compliant. In particular, if the DPA/ADPA has a maritime background this is fairly commonplace.

As far as internal ISM audits, which are required, you say you have never seen or heard of a DPA/ADPA conducting an internal ISM audit? In my experience they are the only ones who would be conducting an internal ISM audit. Given the responsibility of the DPA/ADPA with respect to the safety management system, it only makes sense that they be the ones tasked with this. That internal audit is for both the vessels and the shore-based management. From my experience this is also commonplace.

Possibly, but there’s also the location issue. When the ship is on the other side of the world how does the DPA in America ever walk around it? Or when the DPA is in Seattle and the vessels are in the GoM? They may come to the vessel one a year but that’s not what’s being discussed.

They’re are numerous 3rd party companies that only do “internal” audits do apparently your experience is very limited. I’m not saying that there aren’t companies where the DPA does the internal audit but it isn’t nearly as common as you are to think.

Also, the companies that I know of that actually do internal audits internally it isn’t the DPA that does them.

1 Like

With all due respect, I think it is you who has the very limited experience. What exactly is your background and experience?
How many ISM compliant vessels have you actually been Master or Chief Mate of?
The companies that you “know of” that do their own internal ISM audits don’t have the DPA/ADPA do it? Who does, then? That makes no sense.
How many internal/external ISM audits have you actually participated in as Master or Chief Mate?
The companies that you “know of” that do internal audits don’t have the DPA/ADPA do it? Who does, then? That makes no sense.

They have a person that just does auditing and compliance.

I’ve never claimed to have massive amounts of personal experience with this but the fact that there are numerous 3rd party companies that supply “internal” auditors as a full time business proves this statement wrong and thus brings your experience into question.

They take an airline flight to wherever the boat is located. Pretty simple really.

When I was a technical superintendent/DPA based on the US east coast I would fly as far as Fiji and Polynesia to do audits. Our European office DPA would do European and Middle East audits.

It’s no big deal.

They’d do that just to do a walk around on the boat? Why am I skeptical. (I wasn’t talking about doing audits but just doing occasional walk arounds on the boat. I’m sure if the DPA was the company auditor they’d fly to wherever the boat is to do the periodic audit.)

No, you don’t fly halfway around the world to “just walk around the boat.” Unless the boat is nearby and it’s convenient for all there is little need to “just walk around” anyway … the crew has better things to do than entertain an office weenie. If there are issues with the boat or crew or a social call is deemed appropriate then a domestic flight is not necessarily out of consideration.

It’s unfortunate you feel the need to insult which contributes nothing productive.

The bottom line with all of this is the safety of the crew and vessel. No crew member, Captain or otherwise, should fear retaliation for reporting safety issues. Reporting and identifying safety issues is the first step in mitigating them. If the corporate culture is one of retaliation and/or intimidation then there is no safety culture. The ISM code and safety management systems were implemented to foster and encourage a positive safety culture. The Flag State(s) and USCG have the ability to enforce ISM compliance but don’t. As long as this enablement continues the culture will not change. This impacts all mariners in all areas of our industry.

Which is exactly what my comment was saying.