SPOTLIGHT ON SAFETY: WHY ACCIDENTS ARE OFTEN NOT ACCIDENTAL - MM&P and Dalhousie University Reporrt

I want trying to be outright offensive but you made a demonstrably false statement and based it in your experience. I was pointing that out.

“In my experience they are the only ones who would be conducting an internal ISM audit.” (Emphasis added.)

If you had said this I could have agreed with you:

“In my opinion they are the only ones who should be conducting an internal ISM audit.”

True. I don’t think it’s a matter of fearing retaliation per se but that the office views any observations during an audit as a bad thing and the crew wants to look top notch. Again, ombugge was talking from a very different perspective of experience than mine so I’m not saying it didn’t work for him but that I don’t think it would necessarily work everywhere.

I have made no false statements. I have been through several internal ISM audits and they were conducted by the DPA/ADPA.

I’ve never personally had the DPA conduct an internal ISM audit. I have had the DPA sit in on an audit but the auditor is almost always a third party contractor. We are ABS classed and I’ve always felt this is the way ABS prefers it. I’ve certainly heard comments from external auditors about the varied names they see in the annual internal audit report.

2 Likes

A European shipping company where I was employed as master had a superintendent responsible for up to eight vessels. The superintendent responsible for the vessel visited at least once per year and for dry docking of each vessel that they were responsible for.
It was customary to sign the superintendent on as a supernumerary to get around the Jones Act so he could join in Los Angeles and disembark in Oakland. Because of the Jones Act he had a choice of passenger suites to use.
The DPA visited each vessel over a two year period and where ever possible visited the vessel in Europe otherwise he visited at some convenient port anywhere in the world.

I forgot to mention that we had audits conducted by flag state and the classification society as well.

I have been through internal ISM audits at several companies and at none of them has the DPA ever conducted the audit. I’ve never said the DPA never does the internal audit anywhere, I just doubt it’s particularly common and the DPA is definitely not the only person who would conduct them.

Who did your internal audits? Was it a company employee or a 3rd party?

A company employee, normally the marine superintendent.

I’ve never had an ISM internal conducted by our DPA either. Hell, I’ve never had him aboard a vessel I’ve been Master of and I’m thankful for that. On the contrary, we have designated auditors… one of our designated auditors is former USCG, and knows what he’s doing, which is a nice change from the idiot that used to be employed with the company Doing audits.

As for narc’ing on the office for not addressing issues and needs to external auditors… yeah, I’ve done it when it was something I really was concerned about that oilfield mentality was slowing their progress on whatever it was. But I haven’t had to do that really since the downturn caused the office to get rid of a lot of deadweight.

More often than not though, I’m throwing myself under the bus on something minor to give the auditor an observation so they’ll finish faster and leave me alone. They will search until they find something. No getting around it, so if I can give them a rusty flame screen or an unstenciled fire axe, they can leave and we can both be happier.

1 Like

My understanding is that the number is 3 somethings. That is the magic “payday” number. After too many years of going through it, finding those three items is getting harder and harder.

The ship feels a little bit safer every time they finish though. :roll_eyes:

1 Like

Auditor comes aboard and finds 2 items, crew works hard improves things, another auditor comes aboard and finds 6 items. To the shoreside it looks like things on the ship are three times worse.

That method is too subjective. Discouraging for the crew. What needs to be checked is can problems be identified, tracked and corrected? Are things on the ship improving , staying the same or getting worse?

2 Likes

In a properly functioning safety management system, safety issues are identified, tracked and corrected. From the initial report of the issue/non-conformity until it is closed out there is (or should be) documentation of when reported, the action taken and when it is closed out. Constantly improving safety is the objective.

The larger picture is being missed. A safety management system that exists “on paper” is worthless. The corporate management culture must sincerely value safety and genuinely commit to a culture of safety. The most elementary step in improving safety is the reporting of safety issues and/or violations without fear of retaliation. What good is a safety management system if, on paper, crew members are required to report safety issues but, in reality, if they do they risk being retaliated upon? Corporate cultures of retaliation and cover-up such as Noble Drilling have demonstrated that safety is not a priority and that they are not capable of regulating themselves. They are dangerous and irresponsible. The Spring 2016 edition of the U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings” magazine was dedicated to safety management systems and their importance in maritime safety. Unfortunately, what the USCG has published in writing is a stark contrast from the reality. ISM compliance and safety management systems are required under SOLAS. The regulatory and/or law enforcement agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard and the Flag State(s) have the authority to enforce ISM compliance but, unfortunately, they don’t and their indifference to holding these corporate entities accountable is disappointing to say the least. Politics and pandering takes precedent over the safety of the mariner. This is a problem in our industry that needs to be addressed but, more importantly, that needs to stop. Until this changes the corporate management of Noble Drilling-type companies will continue to operate with even more hubris and arrogance because they know there are no consequences for their actions. This enablement from the U.S. Coast Guard and the Flag State(s) and the law enforcement agencies will eventually result in another potentially avoidable tragedy i.e. “why accidents are often not accidental.”

Not being missed, anyone sailing master likely fully understands this. Successfully running a ship requires not just good management and seamanship it also requires knowing which way the winds are blowing at the office.

In my experience it’s very unlikely a single captain can significantly move the needle on company culture by using the non-conformance system. Best case scenario is win big settlement after getting fired or side-lined. Playing the lottery might be a better bet.

Change is going to have to be top-down, from the regulators.

1 Like

For someone in the position of Captain, in addition to solid management and knowledgable seamanship, successfully running a vessel requires putting the safety of the crew and vessel first above all else including ones self. Their safety is our responsibility.

When I was made aware of and verified the illegal and unsafe activities that had taken place on the vessel I was obligated to report them. This had a direct impact on the safety of the crew and vessel. Not reporting it was never an option and company policy required the reporting of all safety issues and/or violations. If I didn’t report it then I would be complicit in those activities. Ironically, “Silence Is Consent” was a Noble Drilling safety phrase. Considering that Noble Drilling had just pled guilty to eight felonies and was on probation, my impression was that management expected nothing but above-board conduct. I had no idea that what I reported was a cover-up that went as high as it did and involved the ADPA, the VP/Chief Compliance Officer of Noble Drilling and other members of senior management.

I agree with you that it is difficult, if not impossible, for one Captain to change a corporate culture. A company such as Noble Drilling has shown they are not capable of changing culture for the betterment and safety of their personnel. In situations such as this it is, as you stated, going to have to be a top-down change starting with the regulators i.e. the U.S. Coast Guard. Many individuals in the U.S. Coast Guard have publicly stated the importance and criticality of safety management systems and “safety culture.” They know how to say the right words but, unfortunately, they will take no action to back it up. This must change.

Jeff Hagopian

Yes, if I remember right he was a disgruntled employee. Something about gambling and paying out overtime to cover the debts.

1 Like

You should educate yourself on what you are posting before you make false, uninformed and defamatory statements about anyone. However, if you still elect to make such false and uneducated statements you should, at the very least, have the courage and fortitude to not hide behind a computer and a pseudonym.

I would encourage you and all mariners to read the “Spotlight On Safety” paper. It is very informative and sheds light on a very important subject that impacts the safety of all mariners.

Jeff Hagopian

1 Like

I looked for the previous post with comments and can’t find it, so I apologize if I misstated. You do seem disgruntled, even to the point of arguing that only the DPA can conduct audits. You also seem sensitive about your sailing experience. Don’t worry, you’ll get seatime and experience eventually.

In my opinion, the topic has good potential, but with 2 errors on the first page, I lost confidence in the paper. Further, the paper seems a bit confused on whether or not it is focused on US or international enforcement. for example, why focus on the ACP in the US while that is the way things are done for most every other flag? It just gives the impression someone is ranting about ACP (and ABS) again, and objectivity is lost.

That being said, my above comments are not intended to diminish the experiences of both Captains.

It’s unfortunate that you are missing the larger picture of the “Spotlight On Safety” article. Safety should be the one common denominator between all mariners no matter what area of our industry they work in.
Making continued uneducated and ill-informed insults contributes nothing to the very important topic at hand.

Jeff Hagopian