Consensus- anyone that can be delegated as SSO must have the training and their STCW endorsed.
Trusting people reading this thread get their endorsement.
I suppose there are a lot of ways a lot of things can be interpreted. I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree…
[quote=anchorman;9343]You can easily make an argument that letting anyone off the vessel, for whatever reason, shows a lack of responsibility, and be right 100% of the time, provided you’re the Master. You also have the latitude to go the other way as the Master.
[I]C - I suppose if you wanted to have dissent amongst the ranks, go ahead an keep them bottled up and onboard 24/7. We all know how well that works! That being said, I think it’s a responsible action to make sure that you have enough people onboard to get underway if you had to.[/I]
Please provide the verbatim text that says “SSO onboard at all times”. I cannot find it. I know the SSO is required as is the Captain, but the Captain getting a hair cut or talking on a pay phone down the pier does not mean someone else is now the Captain. I don’t see where it’s different being an SSO.
[I]C - There is no paragraph, or sentence that says “SSO onboard at all times”.
What it does clearly state though, is that the “Ship shall respond without undue delay to any change to a higher security level - Amendments to the Annex to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 as amended, Chapter XI -2, Regulation 4”.
As well, it states in Part A of the same (the mandatory requirements of the ISPS), Chapter 12, the duties of the SSO.
12 Ship Security Officer
12.1 A ship security officer shall be designated on each ship.
12.2 In addition to those specified elsewhere in the Part of the Code, the duties and responsibilities of the ship security officer shall include, but are not limited to:
.1 undertaking regular security inspections of the ship to ensure that appropriate measure are maintained;
.2 maintaining and supervising the implementation of the ship security plan, including any amendments to the plan;
.3 co-ordinating the security aspects of the handling of cargo and ship’s stores with the other shipboard personnel and with the relevant port facility security officers;
.4 proposing modifications to the ship security plan;
.5 reporting to the company security officer any deficiencies and non-conformities identified during internal audits, periodic reviews, security inspections and verifications of compliance and implementing any corrective actions;
.6 enhancing security awareness and vigilance on board;
.7 ensuring that adequate training has been provided to shipboard personnel, as appropriate;
.8 reporting all security incidents;
.9 co-ordinating implementation of the ship security plan with the company security officer and the relative port facility security officer; and
.10 ensuring that the security equipment is properly operated, tested, calibrated and maintained, if any.
Part B (the Guidance portion of the Code), in Paragraph 13.2 it lays out the additonal knowledge that the SSO should have -
13.2 In addition, the SSO should have adequate knowledge of, and receive training in, some or all of the following, as appropriate:
.1 the layout of the ship;
.2 the ship security plan (SSP) and related procedures (including scenario-based training on how to respond);
.3 crowd managment and control techniques;
.4 operations of security equipment and systems; and
.5 testing, calibration and at-sea maintenance of security equipment and systems.
Last, but not least, are these interpretations of XI-2 by the IMO Maritime Safety Commitee:
[/I] [I][FONT=Arial]- Regulation XI-2/8 confirms the role of the Master in exercising his professional judgement over decisions necessary to maintain the security of the ship. It says he shall not be constrained by the Company, the charterer or any other person in this respect. [/I][/FONT]
[I][FONT=Arial]- The Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) has confirmed that neither the drafting of the definition of the SSO nor the provisions of the ISPS Code relating to his responsibilities, training etc. were aimed at preventing the master from being designated as SSO.[/I][/FONT]
[I][FONT=Arial]According to the ISPS Code, it is the responsibility of the Company and the Company Security Officer to appoint the SSO. This naturally has to be endorsed by the Administration of the flag State and/or the Recognized Security Organization through the approval of the Ship Security Plan and issuing of the International Security Shipping Certificate and/or the relevant training certificate by the Administration as appropriate.[/I][/FONT]
[I][FONT=Arial]The definition of the SSO should be viewed in conjunction with SOLAS regulation XI-2/8 on “Master’s discretion for ship safety and security”, which makes it clear that the master has ultimate responsibility for safety and security.[/I][/FONT]
[I][FONT=Arial]The phrase “accountable to the master” in the definition of SSO is intended to cover those situations, for example on large passenger ships, where the SSO is not the master, by reaffirming that the master has overall responsibility for security. There is implicitly no intention of preventing the master from assuming the duties of SSO, as this would be inconsistent with SOLAS regulation XI-2/8.[/I][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][I]It is, of course, for the national Administrations to decide if they wish to impose particular restrictions on who may serve as SSOs on ships flying their flag. This should, however, not be imposed by national Administrations on ships not flying their flag through port State control measures, since this is clearly the prerogative of the Contracting Government of the flag State concerned.
In the end, someone knowledgeable in the duties, and with the stroke to make decisions should be standing in during the absence of the SSO, and especially if you have to get underway, which in some VSP’s is the case during a MARSEC upgrade.
[/I][/FONT]
I do agree with you’re opinion as a matter of professionalism, but opinions are not the common denominator of any code that we are subject to follow.
[I]C - You are 100% correct, and I’m glad we agree. [/I]
I can see delegating duties. That is not a problem, but I think it’s micky mouse bullshit to delegate “authority” to a person, by reliquishing being the SSO for a hair cut, and while you’re gone, you have nothing to answer for legally if something happens.
[I]C - You are correct, again. Maybe something was lost in translation, but I never advocated anyone relinquishing their duties as SSO. I did say that someone has to assume his duties in his absence. That being said, someone has to be able to implement the intent of the Code, and the VSP, when the SSO is absent. Who is that going to be? An “event” isn’t going to wait for the SSO to get back from whatever errand he was tending to, nor is an upgrade in the MARSEC level. Is it?
Most of the rest of the shipping world operates differently than the GOM, and will continue to do so, no matter how things are interpreted here.
In the end, it is a matter of interpretation, just like the CFR’s. Interpret as you see fit, and make good, sound judgments with regard to what’s written and intended.
[/I]
[/quote]
[quote=El Capitan;9233]
Actually, that’s a good question for Jim Cavo: Under the current scheme, can a properly certified Engineer get the STCW endorsement as a SSO?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure engineers can be endorsed for SSO. I’ve been out of the office all week and will confirm next week. There is a sea time requirement, but time as an engineer should count.