AUGUST 2016 mial.com.auMA
RIT
IME
EXT
RA
MA
GA
ZIN
E
SAFETY Current ATSB investigations The Breakaway of Spirit of Tasmania II The Fatality on board the Skandi Pacific Fire Protection in the marine industry
THE POWER OF ONE In the Deep End with Ann Sherry
ENVIRONMENT Emission Update The new Biosecurity laws Coral Bleaching
Photo courtesy Russell Trims
2 MIAL MAX
AMCS continually seeks innovative solutions to enhance current services to meet industry needs, the latest innovation being our Web enabled simulator access (WESA).
WESA is an Australian Maritime College (AMC) technological advancement, offering simulator capabilities at client premises, linked via web to AMC’s full mission bridge simulator.
Benefits include:
• On-site mini-bridge simulator capability using proven AMC expertise
• Access to clients’ port(s) modelled by AMC
• Access to AMC open library ship models
• Options for local facilitation or facilitator led interactive simulation studies conducted remotely from AMC
Enquire Now.
[email protected]+613 6324 9850 AMC SEARCH
SCommercial arm of the Australian Mari� me College
Working with the maritime industry to provide the training and services they want
3AUGUST 2016
CONTENTS
Maritime Industry Australia Ltd
Level 1, 4 Princes Street
Port Melbourne VIC 3207
T: +61 3 9647 6000
mial.com.au
If you have any questions or comments relating to any articles in this newsletter, please feel free to contact the Max Editor on 03 9647 6000 or [email protected].
About MIAL Max Magazine is published quarterly by Maritime Industry Australia Ltd, Level 1/4 Princes Street, Port Melbourne 3207. Ph: 03 9647 6000. Disclaimer: Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication at the time of going to press, the Maritime Industry Australia Ltd (MIAL) makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained herein. MIAL shall not be liable for any loss, damage or expense howsoever incurred by any organisation or individual relying on information or statements contained in this publication. MIAL has no control over the content contained in advertisements within this publication and advertisers are solely responsible for the content of the advertising material which they submit to us. Any views or opinions expressed in articles contained within this publication are those of the author of the article and are not necessarily held by MIAL.
WELCOME FROM THE CHAIRMAN AND THE CEO 4
ATSB IN FOCUS 5
MIAL SAFETY FORUM 9
THE POWER OF ONE: IN THE DEEP END WITH ANN SHERRY 11
WHEN LESS IS MORE 14
BIOSECURITY 16
PROGRESS ON SHIPPING CO2 EMISSIONS 19
SAFETY 20
SUMMER OF CORAL BLEACHING 21
SAFETY 22
NEW MEMBERS 23
Front Cover Photo: Bright Light - This photo was taken by Russell Trims from the deck looking through the water of a fire monitor on an Anchor handler whilst conducting a drill. Russell entered our Maritime Photo Competition in 2015. For further information please contact MIAL on 03) 9647 6000.
AMCS continually seeks innovative solutions to enhance current services to meet industry needs, the latest innovation being our Web enabled simulator access (WESA).
WESA is an Australian Maritime College (AMC) technological advancement, offering simulator capabilities at client premises, linked via web to AMC’s full mission bridge simulator.
Benefits include:
• On-site mini-bridge simulator capability using proven AMC expertise
• Access to clients’ port(s) modelled by AMC
• Access to AMC open library ship models
• Options for local facilitation or facilitator led interactive simulation studies conducted remotely from AMC
Enquire Now.
[email protected]+613 6324 9850 AMC SEARCH
SCommercial arm of the Australian Mari� me College
Working with the maritime industry to provide the training and services they want
MIAL WORLD MARITIME DAY LUNCHEON
MIAL are pleased to announce that Vice Admiral Barrett, Chief of Navy will once again speak at the MIAL World Maritime Day Luncheon on September 8th at Etihad Stadium, Melbourne.
Details: MIAL World Maritime Day
Date: 8th September, 2016
Time: 1200-1400
Location: Etihad Stadium, Melbourne
Members price: $135
Non-Member price: $195
Both prices include GST.
To book go to mial.com.au or phone 03) 9647 6000
4 MIAL MAX
WELCOME
from the Chief Executive Officer
from the Chairman
Action Stations….
With the election result finally known we can again concentrate on getting things moving!
Our dealings with Minister Chester to date have been very open, inclusive and positive. He appears to genuinely want to achieve a positive change to policy settings that affect the Australian maritime industry and has expressed an appreciation of the breadth of the maritime sector – from trading ships to offshore oil and gas activities, cruise and work boats and utility vessels.
Since early this year MIAL has been working with anyone and everyone who has been interested in formulating a policy that will provide certainty and stability of coastal trading policy settings. The release of a green paper resulting from those discussion is imminent and we look forward to discussing it with Minister Chester in the near future.
More broadly, maritime activity is critical to the ongoing prosperity and growth in Northern Australia and MIAL look forward to working with both Minister Chester and Minister Canavan (Resources and Northern Australia) on delivering
the Northern Australia White Paper priorities by highlighting where maritime activities can contribute to the Northern Australia Transport Plan and the White Paper objectives generally.
The Hon Anthony Albanese MP has been announced as the Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development. We have had a long history with Mr Albanese who understands the issues for maritime very well.
The make-up of the current parliament means that any legislation that doesn’t have broad support (Coalition, Labor and the Greens) is unlikely to make it through the Senate. It is as important as ever for MIAL to work hard to find agreement across stakeholders for the various issues we seek to pursue on behalf of our Members
Teresa Lloyd Chief Executive Officer
Welcome to another edition of our magazine MAX. This edition features articles on two very important aspects of the maritime industry - safety and the environment. Good safety practices and environmental compliance and initiatives are fundamental to operating a successful maritime enterprise as I am sure you are well aware. Neither can be taken for granted and require constant vigilance based on training, procedures, reinforcement and company culture. Sadly many accidents and incidents can be attributed to people thinking they are doing the ’right thing’ by taking a shortcut or saving time, and in so doing, by-passing their training and procedures. It is up to us all to be alert, and intervene where necessary to ensure best practice at all times, and keep our colleagues and environment safe.
I am delighted to welcome two new board members to our association, Bill Bisset from CSL Australia who replaces Mike Easy from SeaRoad Shipping, and Steffan Risager from Svitzer who replaces Mark Malone who was also formerly with Svitzer. I would like to once again thank Mike and Mark for their contribution to MIAL, and extend a warm welcome to Bill and Stefan.
It is also very pleasing to welcome and advise you of new members DOF, ERGT, Ardent, Survival Systems International and Australian Maritime Lawyers joining us – again being
very indicative of our broad membership base from across the industry. Please take time to read more details of these members in this edition.
We look forward to working with the newly elected Parliament over the coming years and we are very pleased that The Hon Darren Chester MP has been confirmed to continue as the Infrastructure and Transport Minister. We look forward to MIAL Members participating in our Parliamentary event later in the year to meet the Minister and his colleagues personally.
Finally, MIAL has once again secured the Chief of Navy, Admiral Tim Barrett to speak at our World Maritime Day event on 8 September. RADM Barrett is an engaging speaker and his vision for Navy/Merchant relations is something that should resonate throughout the maritime community. If you haven’t yet booked your place at this insightful and prestigious event I encourage you to do so soon to avoid disappointment.
Enjoy the magazine and stay safe out there,,
Noel G Hart Chairman
5AUGUST 2016
Overview of the ATSBThe Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) is an independent Commonwealth Government statutory Agency. The ATSB is governed by a Commission and is entirely separate from transport regulators, policy makers and service providers.
The ATSB’s function is to improve safety and public confidence in the aviation, marine and rail modes of transport through excellence in:
• independent investigation of transport accidents and other safety occurrences;
• safety data recording, analysis and research; and
• fostering safety awareness, knowledge and action.
The ATSB is established by the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (TSI Act) and conducts its investigations in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Under the TSI Act, it is not a function of the ATSB to apportion blame or provide a means for determining liability. The ATSB does not investigate for the purpose of taking administrative, regulatory or criminal action.
MarineMarine transport accounts for the vast majority of imports and exports of cargo in and out of Australia, and also plays a significant role through coastal trade. Cruise shipping is also a growth industry.
The ATSB conducts marine investigations into accidents and serious incidents involving Australian registered ships anywhere in the world, foreign flag ships within Australian waters, or where evidence relating to an accident involving ships is found in Australia. Accidents and serious incidents must be reported as soon as practicable to the ATSB. Often such a report will be made through the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA). If you wish to report a marine accident or incident, you may contact the Australian Search and Rescue (AusSAR) on 1800 641 792 or the ATSB on 1800 011 034.
Australia is also a council member of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and actively participates in its forums on accident investigations in the interests of making global improvements to shipping safety.
Legislative frameworkThe TSI Act allows the ATSB to investigate transport safety matters in the aviation, marine and rail transport modes within the Australian Government’s constitutional jurisdiction. The Act contains powers for the release of transport safety information, including investigation reports that detail the findings and significant factors that led to a particular transport safety occurrence.
A comprehensive regime of provisions within the TSI Act is in place to maintain the confidentiality of, and legal protection for, a range of sensitive safety information obtained by ATSB investigators. ATSB investigation reports and most evidence collected during an investigation cannot be used in civil or criminal proceedings. ATSB investigation reports may be used in coronial inquiries for the purpose of improving safety.
At 06001 on 13 January 2016, the roll-on roll-off passenger ship Spirit of Tasmania II (Figure 1) berthed at Station Pier in the Port of Melbourne. The ship had just completed its usual, scheduled Bass Strait transit from Devonport, Tasmania to Melbourne, Victoria.
A ‘strong wind warning’2 for Port Phillip was in effect and had been re-issued at 0527 that morning. The master was aware of this warning, and also knew a cold front was expected to pass across the port at about 2100 that evening. As a precaution, he had instructed that two of the ship’s four main
ATSB in focus
The breakaway of the Spirit of Tasmania II
Figure 1: Spirit of Tasmania II alongside Station Pier after the incident
1 All times referred to in this report are local time, Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) + 11 hours. 2 The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) defines strong winds as those with a 10-minute average speed between 26 and 33 knots. <www.bom.gov.au>
SAFETY
6 MIAL MAX
engines be ready for manoeuvring at immediate notice from 1600. Departure was scheduled for 1930.
At about 1600, unloading was completed and the loading of freight and vehicles started.
At 1630, the master, who had slept from 1330 onwards to rest for Spirit of Tasmania II’s evening sailing, awoke and attended to some administrative tasks. He also checked the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) website and noted little change to the weather forecast. At about 1700, when he went to the navigation bridge, the situation appeared normal and as expected. At the time, the wind was 20 knots3 from the west and the weather was clear.
At about 1730, passengers began boarding – those with cars driving on board via the lower vehicle ramp while others boarded via the aft passenger access. The ship’s managers and master had agreed to board the waiting passengers about 30 minutes earlier than usual because it had been a hot day (44°C).
At about 1750, the master returned to his cabin and again checked the BoM website. He saw that a ‘severe thunderstorm warning’4 had been issued at 1737. The website indicated a series of thunderstorms approaching Station Pier from the southwest. The thunderstorms were about13 miles off (Figure 2).
On the main vehicle deck, the duty officer, the second mate, was attending to loading of cars into the main and lower decks. Vehicle traffic had been halted on the landside of the ship’s bow ramp as it had banked up in the vehicle deck.
The second mate noticed a breeze coming in through the open ship’s side, pilot access door. He called the chief mate via radio and noted that the wind had picked up, suggesting that the change in weather may have arrived. He closed the passenger door/ramp and pilot access door.
Shortly after, as the master left his cabin to go to the bridge, he saw the wind speed indicator outside his cabin indicated gusts of up to 59 knots. He hurried to the bridge.
At 1753, the wind at Spirit of Tasmania II’s location was nearly 60 knots from the southwest (Figure 3). By then, about 120 passengers had boarded and the ship’s stern had moved off the wharf. With the violent storm force wind5 pushing the stern off, the ship’s aft mooring lines failed in rapid succession. As the stern broke away from the wharf, the ship swung away and towards the shore (Figure 4). On the bridge, Spirit of Tasmania II’s master saw its stern move off the wharf. He telephoned the engine control room but received no response. He then broadcast a message over the ship’s public address system asking an engineer to call the bridge and all crewmembers to go to their mooring stations. The senior engineer in the engine room heard the broadcast, returned to the engine control room, and called the bridge. The master asked for the bow and stern thrusters, followed by two main engines to be started as quickly as possible.
By 1755, the ship was at an angle of approximately 45 degrees to the wharf and turning away from it (negative rate of turn in Figure 3) at 27°/min.
At 1756, an additional diesel generator was running and the thrusters were available for use. The engineers then started necessary pumps and by 1758½, the two main engines were also ready.
Spirit of Tasmania II’s purser and hotel staff were assisting passengers on board when the ship broke away. The purser became aware of the situation when she heard, and then saw, the aft mooring lines parting and the stern moving off the wharf. She followed the developments and response by listening to the ship’s internal radio traffic. She and her staff assisted passengers, distributed food, drinks and provided reassurance and information as it became available.
As the ship’s stern came off the wharf, all the aft mooring lines and all except one of the forward lines parted. The ship pivoted about the bow, its bow ramp slid across and dropped off the wharf leaving it hanging over the bulbous bow. As the ship continued to turn, the end of the bow ramp swung under the wharf, damaging two wooden piles below the wharf apron.
3 One knot, or one nautical mile per hour, equals 1.852 kilometres per hour. 4 BoM defines a severe thunderstorm as one that produces, amongst other criteria, damaging wind gusts, generally exceeding 90 km/h (48.6 knots). 5 The Beaufort wind scale defines violent storm force winds as 56 to 63 knots.
Source: Spirit of Tasmania II voyage data recorder.
Figure 2: Thunderstorm map at 1737 on 13 January. Figure 3: Wind speed and direction, and the ship’s rate of turn.
7AUGUST 2016
The upper vehicle ramp detached from the ship’s bow and jammed between the bow bulwarks. As the ship continued to turn, this ramp twisted away from the bow and hung down from its elevated roadway base.
By 1759, Spirit of Tasmania II was lying at right angles to Station Pier, parallel to the nearby public beach. By then, the stern thruster was being used to control the movement of the ship’s stern.
The Port of Melbourne’s vessel traffic service (VTS) had been aware of the strong wind warning issued by BoM and had had two tugs on standby throughout the day. One tug was at nearby Webb Dock as a precaution to assist a car carrier there. The duty VTS officer directed the tug’s master to proceed to Station Pier to assist Spirit of Tasmania II.
By 1800, the ship’s stern was being held off the beach using two main engines and the bow and stern thrusters. At 1805, the other two main engines were also running and available for use.
At 1809, the tug arrived off Spirit of Tasmania II and was made fast to the ship’s stern. Another tug (the second one on standby) arrived at 1826 and began assisting. By 1900, the wind speed, which had peaked at 1752, was around 10 knots from the south.
By 1905, Spirit of Tasmania II had again been made fast, with its port side alongside Station Pier.
Later in the evening, passengers were allowed access onto and off the ship. Many passengers were accommodated
on board for the night while damage assessments and investigations started. Access to unload vehicles and freight became available the following day.
When Spirit of Tasmania II had turned off the wharf, its starboard bow door had come to rest against the wharf structure. Weight had then came onto it and pushed it against the bow ramp, resulting in damage to a number of its door operating components. The hydraulic system used to operate the doors and ramp was not damaged. The upper vehicle ramp suffered extensive damage requiring it to be removed from the wharf and taken away for repairs.
Inspections and repairs were undertaken to the satisfaction of the ship’s flag State and classification society. On 17 January, 4 days after the incident, Spirit of Tasmania II returned to service.
The preamble in all BoM warnings cautions that wind gust speeds can be 40 per cent higher than the average wind speed, and stronger gusts are likely near showers, thunderstorms and frontal systems.
Investigation direction The investigation is ongoing and will focus on weather events in the Port of Melbourne area, and how the port and port users prepare for such events. This will include:
• The ship’s managers’ (TT line Company) preparations and procedures
• Spirit of Tasmania II preparations and procedures for port stays and weather events, including mooring arrangements and equipment
• Port of Melbourne procedures and actions
• Bureau of Meteorology weather forecasting and warnings
• distribution of weather information and warnings to and amongst port users.
Figure 4: Section of navigational chart AUS154 showing the ship’s breakaway.
The fatality on board the Skandi Pacific.The ATSB is investigating a fatal accident on board anchor handling supply vessel, Skandi Pacific, 166 km NW of Karartha, WA (on the Northwest Shelf). During the early hours of 14 July, Skandi Pacific stopped working cargo with the drilling platform Atwood Osprey due to heavy weather. While attempting to shelter from the weather and secure cargo a wave came
over the back deck of the vessel and shifted cargo. A crew member was attempting to secure cargo when he was crushed between a moving mini-container and a cargo skip. He was removed to the nearby drill platform to receive medical assistance but died of his injuries. As part of the investigation, the ATSB will collect evidence from relevant parties on the ship and ashore. The evidence will be used to prepare a draft investigation report for comment before the completion and release of the final report.
Updated: 28 June 2016
Figure 5: Spirit of Tasmania II’s mooring arrangement.
8 MIAL MAX
9AUGUST 2016
The 14th MIAL Industry Safety Forum was held in two locations during the month of April. MMA Offshore Limited hosted the Forum in Fremantle, the east coast meeting was held at the Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd office in Sydney the following week.
At both sessions, the MIAL Industry Safety Forum Report for period 14 (1 July to 31 December 2015) was presented, outcomes and findings were discussed amongst attendees One thing these vessels have in common is that they all operate under a Safety Management System (SMS) and information pertaining to incidents taking place on board is recorded.
The data is collated, analysed and findings are printed in a report which is then disseminated amongst the participating members. On a smaller scale, the forum enables companies to anonymously benchmark their own safety performance against other participants. In the bigger picture the forum identifies safety performance trends taking shape.
So what were some of the findings observed for this reporting period? For starters the total number of incidents involving Masters, mainly First Aid Cases, exceeded the total number of incidents for all remaining Deck Officers together. This raises the question: how is it possible for the person on board the vessel with the overriding authority and responsibility when it comes to making decisions regarding safety, to score so high up in the ranks when it comes to incidents? Are Masters
fully conversant with the company Safety Management System (SMS) and policies that are in place? Are they receiving all necessary support from the company, enabling them to perform their duties in a safe and responsible manner? Is the SMS reviewed periodically by both the Master and the Designated Person Ashore and are any deficiencies reported to shore-based management? Undoubtedly questions organisations should be asking themselves on a regular basis.
Compared to the average over the period since 1 July 2013, generally the number of incidents have come down, with exception of the Chief Integrated Ratings and Caterers who scored above average. Traditionally the highest number of incidents take place amongst the Integrated Ratings, not overly surprising considering the scope of tasks they perform and the safety risks associated with these duties.
The ‘total injuries by swing stage’ has shown a shift with most incidents now taking place during the last stage of a swing (80% - 100%), whereas in early 2014, recorded over a 5 year period, there was a clear sign of most incidents taking place during the middle of a swing (source: ASA Anchor January 2014 “Beware the Hump Week”).
The number of spills on deck for this period has seen a drastic increase, with a number double the average over the 5 most recent reporting periods, in fact the highest number since 30 June 2013. In contrast to this, with a total of 4 spills over a 6 month period,
and nearly half the average for 5 last reporting periods, the number of spills overboard has seen the lowest figure since years.
Looking at the ‘Incident Cause Analysis’ for 4 out of the 5 most recent reporting periods covering a 2.5 year period, by far the largest number of incidents occurring have been identified as ‘Work Direction’ related. These can be due to work-preparations requiring improvement, inadequate planning or supervision, Job Safety Analysis requires improvement, worker not competent or qualified or work being unfit for duty due to fatigue or substance abuse.
Several members have indicated their willingness to further refine information to be provided for the next Safety Report or have pointed out they commenced recording additional safety data within their organisations, based on information recorded in the MIAL Industry Safety Report. Not only will this allow for further fine-tuning the safety data outcomes but more so to improve their own SMS and get a better understanding as to how and why incidents occur within their fleet and what actions can be taken to prevent recurrence. And that is what good Safety Management is all about, the continuous drive for improving Safety Management Systems and enhance the safety culture within the organisation.
Tim Albers, MIAL
The information required for putting the 6 monthly safety report together consists of total recordable incidents by Rank, Age Group, Stage in Swing, number of near misses, spills, incident cause analysis and ISM performance (number of deficiencies, observations and non-conformities).
SAFETY
10 MIAL MAX
THE POWER OF ONEin the deep end with Ann Sherry
11AUGUST 2016
There is little doubt that the cruise sector in Australia is the shining light in the otherwise glum 2016 maritime space.
Carnival Australia ships across seven distinctive brands will carry most of the more than one million Australians taking an ocean cruise holiday this year.
When Ann Sherry started with Carnival Australia in 2007, passenger numbers for the entire cruise segment were just under 252,000.
And this has largely been driven by the Executive Chairman, who describes herself as having the “stubborn and wilful older child syndrome. I like jobs where everyone says it can’t be done. So I’m quite counter-suggestive. If someone says it can’t be done, it’s probably the job for me.”
It’s like a fairy tale, business high flyer with a swag of acumen, takes on the floundering, weary cruise line ugly duckling and turns it into a golden swan.
In fact, not only has Carnival Australia experienced exponential growth, the domino effect is such that the entire cruising sector has benefited and as a result, the Australian economy. “Cruising now generates $3.6 billion a year in economic activity and supports more than 15,000 jobs” says Sherry. The buoyancy within the cruise sector is also demonstrated by the 2015 numbers from CLIA1:
• Australia is at the top of the global cruise industry for market penetration with 4.5% of the Australian population taking a cruise in 2015
• Australia’s growth rate of 14.6% was second only to the emerging market of China
• Short break cruises of four days or less leapt by 25%
• Australia was the fourth largest source market in the world in 2015, accounting for 4.6% of global cruise passengers
• Australians spent an estimated 10.4 million days at sea in 2015
• Domestic cruising fuelled the growth of Australian passenger numbers, with local cruisers growing by 42%
Carnival Australia under Ann Sherry’s reign has led record industry growth, made cruising the fastest growing sector of Australian tourism, and made our region the fastest growing cruise market in the world. “It’s not often that an opportunity arises where you can change the face of an entire industry. I saw that opportunity at Carnival Australia” says Ann.
So what were those opportunities? Initially, it was about dissecting every element of the business as Sherry puts it
“whenever you rebuild a business you’ve ultimately got to completely reconstruct the culture and to do that you’ve got to go back to first principles. What is it that will make people trust you and want to do business with you? With cruise shipping, it’s got to be safe”.
Making a difference“I’ve often described it as picking up every rock and seeing what was there. If it was good, we just put it back down, if it was bad, we completely re-shaped it. In this way we rebuilt the business, one piece at a time”.
Carnival Australia’s cruise ships have CCTV in the public areas, protocols around responsible service of alcohol encourage on board intervention before a passenger becomes intoxicated. There have also been extensive negotiations across police jurisdictions nationally and internationally to make sure there are clear protocols if there is a crime.
The recent Vanuatu Tour Bus crash resulting in injuries to 12 Australian passengers travelling aboard P&O’s Pacific Dawn and the tragic deaths of three Ni Van is testament to this. Although this was an onshore incident with a third party tour provider, the medical support for the injured, including co-ordinating air lifts to Brisbane and Noumea, was communicated clearly by P&O via media interviews and Facebook updates to the general public. There was no doubt that passenger medical treatment and support for the affected Ni Van families was the priority and P&O had it under control. And it was a classic Ann Sherry response: reassuring and straight down the line.
P&O Cruises assures passengers of strict safety standards after crash Carnival Australia Executive Chairman Ann Sherry said P&O had suspended their contract with the operator of the tour in Port Vila until an investigation was completed.
“The tour operators used by P&O have to be fully accredited and are required to meet our global assurance standards,” said Ms Sherry.
“It’s not a low hurdle.”
Ms Sherry said there were seatbelts on board the bus but she could not say if passengers were wearing them.
“I’m sure that will form part of the investigation,” she said. “If things aren’t being done properly we will know about it.”
Source: Newscorp Australia, 22 June 2016
“If someone says it can’t be done, it’s
probably the job for me”
1 Cruising Lines International Association, Australasia Annual Report 2015
12 MIAL MAX
Creating the impossibleThe growth at Carnival Australia has not only arisen because of improved safety and security though. There is no doubt that segmentation has played a key role. Sherry understood consumer segmentation from her days at Westpac. “At the bank, segmentation was a valued marketing strategy with constant research. When I arrived here, it was a little harder. Firstly there weren’t many people cruising so it was pointless researching them. Secondly it was blatantly obvious that there were two segments: the young and the old; and that’s where we started”.
Sherry tells the story of the Queen Mary 2 circumnavigation of Australia which involved potential passengers registering their interest prior to ticket release. This created such a flurry in the market that when registrations began at midnight they filled up.
It’s all about the segment nuances according to Sherry. Each brand offers a different product, a different itinerary, a different experience. What Carnival Australia offers consumers now, is staggering:
• 8 brands (including the new social impact cruise line Fathom)
• 40 new destinations in Australia, South Pacific and Southeast Asia
• 16 new destinations alone in Australia including regional ports
• 20 ships deployed year round or seasonally in Australia this year
• 2 ships -- Pacific Aria and Pacific Eden -- joined the P&O Cruises ‘home brand’ fleet last year and Pacific Explorer joins next year
• In 2019, the first ship built specifically for the Australian market joins P&O Cruises
“To grow the market we transformed the quality of the product, dramatically increased capacity and attracted different demographics” said Ann.
Managing realityWhen Ann Sherry believes in an issue, her language is powerful - be it passenger safety or a perceived injustice or inaccuracy. Sherry is a supporter of marriage equality and at an event organised by Australian Marriage Equality on “Does marriage equality matter to corporate Australia?” in May 2015, Sherry said “If Australia was Australia Proprietary Limited it would be illegal to discriminate. (But) if you’re in government it’s OK to discriminate”. This year she commented on the call for a royal commission into banking, “The royal commission is pure politics. I don’t think anyone ever changed culture or business performance via a royal commission”.
So it is not surprising that Sherry is outspoken on the NSW low sulphur regulations. “It was the magic pudding of poor policy. A Minister gets jammed on a radio show and makes an outrageous promise which has no fact base, no scientific base and imposes a huge financial burden on one part of the maritime sector”.
The NSW regulations, which came into force in October 2015, required cruise ships berthed in Sydney Harbour to use low sulphur fuel within one hour of berthing until one hour before departure. The rules were only applicable to cruise ships.
Australia is a party to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). Annex VI of MARPOL contains the provisions relating to limiting air emissions including sulphur (or SOx as they are known in the industry) and includes a process for the introduction of ‘regional requirements’, known as Emission Control Area (ECA). To establish an ECA, IMO has determined criteria and a procedure that needs to be met. These criterion includes an assessment of the contribution of ships to ambient concentrations of air pollution amongst other things.
Singling out a single ship type is not contemplated. In any event, even though Australia is a party to the Convention, NSW did not follow the procedure or consider the criteria as set out by the IMO. Nor did they follow the process followed by other countries where ‘at berth’ requirements have been applied. At a minimum other nations have undertaken extensive industry consultation, with long lead times, prior to introducing mandatory requirements.
To fix anomalies in the Australian legislation that gives effect to MARPOL the Commonwealth government introduced amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 effective January 2016. This rendered the NSW laws inoperative because federal law is pre eminent. However, Carnival Australia has agreed to comply voluntarily with the NSW low sulphur fuel requirements whilst at berth. It is a lesson in how not to introduce legislation that cuts across an international convention.
Access to berth space is another big issue, with Ann remaining “moderately optimistic” about Garden Island
13AUGUST 2016
becoming the solution. “The reality is that tourists visiting Australia want to disembark at Sydney Harbour. It’s an iconic image, passengers don’t want to hop off a ship and then take a bus to view it.
Our ships are getting bigger too. No Carnival ship being built around the world will fit under Sydney Harbour Bridge. This is a problem for the non-cruise sector as well, what are we doing about it as an industry?”
The Carnival Australia Executive Chairman would also “like to see Australian seafarers on the Carnival fleet but there is absolutely no encouragement federally to actually get them employed.
She did try initially, but “I quickly came to the conclusion that nobody in Canberra cares whether there are Australian seafarers or not. I’d love our ships to have Australian seafarers on them, it’s something I believe in.” Again, this is not just a cruising issue.
Embedding innovationInnovation is the other force that has driven growth at Carnival Australia. “I am very open to the idea that people are constantly finding a better way of doing things”. Innovation is everywhere: supply chain, onboard technology, training - even baggage handling - it is embedded at every touchpoint. “Recently we’ve reviewed our policy on eggs from caged chickens (not allowed) and also our wine suppliers. It is also what has driven the change in the way food is served and the introduction of well known chefs such as Luke Mangan to add more choice to the on board restaurants.
On an international maritime level, the innovations are significant. Carnival Corporation recently launched the AIDAprima, a new LNG dual-fuel cruise ship which will
be branded under its German brand, AIDA Cruises. It’s Carnival Corporation’s most environmentally friendly ship and the world’s first cruise ship to be powered by LNG. Ann Sherry was at the launch and sees the development “as evidence of the group’s commitment to sustainability.”
The next generation cruise ships scheduled for 2019-2020 for AIDA Cruises and Costa Cruises will generate 100% of their power in port and at sea. Now that’s innovation.
Introducing customers to the futureIn terms of future growth for cruising and the maritime industry, Ann says developments in China are very exciting. “The next generation of ships will be created to cater for the Chinese market. We will have the same mix of brands but different ships”.
Carnival Australia has also planned for continued growth in the Australian market with the refurbished Pacific Explorer joining the P&O fleet.
“And then there is the new P&O ship which is being built specifically for the Australian market” says Sherry. The 135,500-tonne ship will be the biggest cruise ship ever to be based fulltime in Australia, carrying more than 4200 guests. To be launched in 2019, the new
ship will have double the capacity of the biggest cruise vessel currently homeporting year round in this market.
Prioritising cruising in maritimeIt also augurs well for the Australian maritime industry with Sherry wanting the cruise industry to be recognised by the maritime sector. “We are not just floating hotels, I’d like the industry to see us as ships - just with different ‘cargo’. We share the same frustrations as the rest of the industry with bunkering, fuel sources, port infrastructure and emissions. We would like to be part of the broader discussion. We are all in this together”.
And as an industry that is frequently told “it can’t be done”, we definitely want Ann Sherry on our side.
References:Ann Sherry of ING Group defends banks’ culture by Tony Boyd, Australian Financial Review, April 28, 2016
Australian CEOs call on political leaders to support marriage equality, by Monica Tan, The Guardian, May 5, 2015
Carnival’s Sherry talks up cruise industry, by Ticky Fullerton, ABC, 29 September 2011
Australia’s tourism industry needs innovation and big ideas to continue to grow, by Ann Sherry, The Daily Telegraph, 17 October 2015
Interview Transcript - Ann Sherry, Australian Story, ABC, 7 June 2010
Sunday Profile Ann Sherry, by Richard Aedy, ABC Radio National, 22 June 2015
“I quickly came to the conclusion
that nobody in Canberra cares whether there are Australian
seafarers or not…”
14 MIAL MAX
For overworked crew in stressful situations, too many procedures and checklists can be counterproductive to maintaining vessel safetyWords: Nippin Anand*
On 16 February 2013, during berthing at Holyhead, the port fin stabiliser of the ro-ro passenger ferry Finnarrow made contact with the jetty resulting in damage to the hull and ingress of water. Among other things, the official investigation found that the ‘procedures for pre-arrival checks were inadequate’ and that ‘the crew lacked familiarity with the vessel’s equipment’.
The Finnarrow case is by no means unusual, in that the investigation set out to ascertain and understand the ‘root cause’ behind the accident. Invariably, the problem is found to lie with the fallible human and an extensive vocabulary has grown up to support this viewpoint: communication breakdown; lack of situational awareness; lack of foresight; complacency; error of omission; over-confidence; to mention just a few.
This is the legacy of the relentless search for human error and procedural inadequacies. To use a metaphor, it’s like trying to find the holes in Swiss cheese. And the solution, obviously, is to plug those holes with more procedures, checklists, barriers and the all too familiar familiarisation programmes.
But are we missing something important in this approach? As the investigation report suggests, the crew on board the Finnarrow were certainly competent and experienced.
They were familiar with the operation of fin stabilisers. Although the stabilisers were designed to house automatically at ship speeds below 6kt, the officer had deliberately chosen to the operate equipment in manual until the last leg of the voyage.
Because the Finnarrow was a ro-pax ferry, perhaps the officer was concerned about cargo care and passenger comfort. Before the officer stepped down from the bridge for harbour stations she had even discussed the status of the stabilisers with the master. But the information from tis brief verbal exchange was lost during the final moments of berthing. The task of housing the stabilising fins was never ticked off the checklist and never completed, eventually leading to an accident.
The Finnarrow was a ro-pax ferry and perhaps the officer was concerned about cargo care and passenger comfort. Checks get overlooked not because of slips, lapses and mistakes, but because there is too much to do in too little time
How could a competent team of professionals miss out something so crucial? Why did they screw up? Was it an error of omission or more than that? To answer these questions, we need to get into the shoes of those on board.
Approaching the port at around 0500h on a dark cold morning in February, a duty officer is caught between leaving the fin stabilisers deployed until the last moment for passenger comfort and housing them beforehand for safety reasons. Added to this is a half-awake master on the bridge taking over controls, a duty officer eager to hand-over and run down for harbour stations, communicating with port control in a foreign language, as well as the constraints of pilot exemption and the most important task of ensuring navigational safety. Those with seagoing experience will recognise it as a stressful operation.
Now consider the following arrival checks on the checklist. Reporting to port control diligently as marked on the chart, informing the master, removing anchor lashings, engines on standby mode, ensuring all steering gears on, bow thrusters turned on, notifying the crew, helmsman on the wheel, deploying bridge wings monitors, getting windows washed, unlocking cargo doors, isolating certain fire alarms and somewhere hidden amongst these checks is ‘house stabilisers’.
It is understandable that certain checks are intended purely for efficiency gains (e.g. unlocking cargo doors prior to arrival); most were for avoiding the risks that may arise during berthing (e.g. Removing anchor lashings, switching on standby machinery), some were of less serious consequence (e.g. Washing windows, isolating fire alarms) and with the benefit of hindsight the most imporatnat check was ‘house stabiliser’. Credit must be given where it is due. The investigation report clearly highlighted the “the safety management system (SMS) did not include any reference as to when specific aspects of the day voyage checklist should be completed”.
However, the problem here is far more serious than introducing reminders or signposts to those ‘’forgetful humans’’. A check has been overlooked not because of slips, lapses and mistakes but because far too much is set to be achieved in a restrictive timescale and with limited resources. Miss this point and the lessons learnt take a completely different direction. Going by the traditional approach, what follows is adding two more procedures and half a dozen checks when the need of the hour is removing task of lesser consequences from a time critical operation. The sprawling vastness of SMSs – not its omissions – is the crux of the
Frequently, MIAL has gone into bat for our members when the request for paperwork seems cumbersome and excessive. Here is an article, looking at safety procedures from a crew perspective.
When less is more
SAFETY
15AUGUST 2016
DARWIN OFFICE: 3245 MURAMATS ROAD PO BOX 240 DARWIN NT 0828
08 8935 2400
CAIRNS OFFICE: 41 - 45 TINGIRA STREET PO BOX 6755 CAIRNS QLD 4870 07 4035 1234
Weekly Scheduled ServicesProject & Charter ServicesMothershippingLanding Craft
Multiple DepotsTug & Barge SetsBulk FuelPassenger Cruise
problem. Unless companies are committed to providing additional manpower, introducing more procedures would only be to the detriment of an overstretched system.
This proceduralisation of everything myth has been researched extensively in industrial psychology. Supported by several famous experiments (see box below), psychological studies have consistently warned against imposing excessive checks, procedures and barriers. To the contrary, as it was found in the Munich taxi experiment, removing barriers (such as anti-lock disc brakes) from the taxis made the drivers more aware of the risk of collision. It tells us that too much control can sometimes lead to false sense of security – yet another reason to disrespect rules and procedures.
I hope someday that method will replace orthodoxy in making sense of human behaviour in the maritime world. Perhaps those in power will wake up to realise that volume, weight and size of paperwork does not make an organisation safe. As regulators, investigators, operators and seafarers we all need to take a hard look at the monster we have created call ‘safety management system’.
Critics would say that this sounds good on paper but, in practice, how should companies react to the outcries of lawsuits and insurance claims that expect risk assessments even for a handshake on board these days. To this I say an organisation should find itself much less exposed in a courtroom with meaningful procedures begin followed mindfully than a plethora of unrealistic checks being ticked and flicked mindlessly or even worse left ‘omitted’. Small is beautiful and less is more for safety and for business.
*Nippin Anand is a principal specialist at DNV GL. The views expressed in this article may not represent the views of the organisation that the author represents.
A Munich taxi driver once told me…Risk homeostasis holds that everyone has their own fixed level of acceptable risk, which they adjust in response to the introduction of new safety technology. Evidence of this was most famously gathered from a group of German taxi drivers. For three years in the early 1980s half the taxi-cabs in Munich were fitted with anti-lock braking systems (ABS), while the other half had to make do with conventional brakes. All the cabs were fitted with sensors and monitoring equipment.
Among the 747 accidents that occurred during the study, those involving cabs fitted with ABS were clearly over-represented in accidents where the driver was not at fault. Further analysis of the data revealed that drivers of cabs with ABS made sharper turns in curves, were less accurate in their lane-holding behaviour, proceeded at a shorter forward sight distance, made poorly adjusted merging manoeuvres and created more ‘traffic conflicts’. Non-ABS drivers were found to drive more carefully since they could not rely on ABS to evade a dangerous situation. Similar conclusions were reached in experiments with passenger vehicle seat-belts, airbags, cycle helmets and the removal of traffic signals or other road furniture.
Counter-intuitive as it may seem, it is possible that some safety technologies increase rather than reduce risk. This is because humans tend to resist external controls and prefer to ‘own’ their decisions.
Source: The Marine Professional
16 MIAL MAX
The Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) came into effect across Australia and replaces the Quarantine Act 1908 (Cth) which had struggled to keep pace with modern day risks to the nation’s health, agricultural industry and the environment. Indeed, at the time the Quarantine Act was enacted, only 2 Australians had passports. These days, federal authorities deal with approximately:
• 16m arriving international passengers;• 186m international mail items;• 1.7m sea cargo consignments; and • 26m air cargo consignments
Despite containing 645 sections and 119 regulations, the Act does not precisely define “biosecurity.” It has been defined elsewhere as “procedures or measures designed to protect the population against harmful biological or biochemical substances.”
The Act is divided into 11 Chapters covering the management of biosecurity risks (human health, goods and conveyances), compliance and enforcement, ballast water, ‘approved arrangements’ (replacing Quarantine Approved Premises and Compliance Agreements) and biosecurity emergencies.
Of note, the Act substantially redefines ‘international’ waters as those beyond 12NM from Australia’s shoreline (whereas it was previously 200NM) and makes it clear that all goods and conveyances arriving in Australian territory are subject to biosecurity control. ‘Goods’ and ‘conveyances’ are given extraordinarily wide definitions.
The Act is administered by the Commonwealth departmental heads of agriculture and health. Substantial powers are given to these directors to ‘determine’ a plethora of matters from time to time. Previously, often cumbersome parliamentary processes were needed for relatively minor changes. It is inevitable that numerous “Determinations” will be issued in the future, substantially affecting stakeholders’ rights and obligations. These ‘determinations’ have the force of law as delegated/subordinate legislation.
Both departments have a plethora of information about the new Act on their websites but navigation can be difficult. NEVER rely on any governmental website or publication in relation to legal matters. While they are generally a good source of departmental policy, It is always best to check the actual law. Note that it is NO DEFENCE to a charge, infringement etc if you rely on a departmental publication, verbal advice etc which turns out to be in fact wrong and thus unlawful. In the case of Ostrowski v Palmer a commercial fisherman, Mr Palmer, was verbally told by fisheries officials that he could fish in a particular area. In
reliance on this he fished as advised. As it turns out, the officials were wrong. Ultimately, the High Court of Australia held that Mr Palmer had no defence to a charge of fishing in the unlawful area.
One of the most significant developments that the Act ushers in is a national framework for regulating the biosecurity risks posed by ballast water. The legislation has been drafted to move Australian legislation towards consistency with the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments 2004. Under the Act, it is an offence to discharge ballast water in Australian seas. A person does not commit an offence if an exception applies (as defined) but records must be kept of the same.
There are a plethora of criminal and civil offences under the Act. Some carry terms of imprisonment. The authorities reassure that they will be taking an ‘educative’ rather than rather than ‘punishment and punitive’ responses during the initial period.
In general, the Act is a welcome addition to the protection of Australia’s health, environment and industry, especially in relation to regulating ballast water. Yet it will be many years before it could be confidently said that it has achieved these ends.
Nick BOYDEN LLB, Principal Lawyer Australian Maritime Lawyers
The new biosecurity laws
ENVIRONMENT
“When the Quarantine Act 1908 (Cth) was enacted, only 2 Australians had passports”
FROM A LAWYER’S PERSPECTIVE
17AUGUST 2016
After over 100 years of service, the Quarantine Act 1908 retired in June to be replaced by a modern and more flexible piece of legislation – the Biosecurity Act 2015. The new Act, which commenced on the 16 June 2016, will see some fundamental changes to Australian biosecurity regulation and a purposeful shift of the burden of regulation and compliance to industry.
Previously, the Australian biosecurity zone included the Australian EEZ, encompassing the sea area out to 200nm. Since its commencement the Biosecurity Act draws in the Australian biosecurity zone closer to land, to 12nm.
Some maritime operations, such as offshore oil and gas projects, which once existed as entirely domestic operations, will now technically be ‘international’ for the purposes of biosecurity. Importantly, the day to day operations and the actual biosecurity risk of these projects remains the same.
To ward of a frightening level of increased administrative burden and potential delays to normal operations, significant consultation with the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, resource companies and vessel operators has taken place.
A key challenge of the consultation was to ensure that, as the primary biosecurity interface, the entire responsibility for biosecurity compliance did not fall to vessel operators. Another challenge was to ensure that the very low biosecurity risk of many existing offshore operations within the EEZ was acknowledged.
Solutions ranging from ‘exceptions’ via regulation to the implementation of approved arrangements utilising existing robust biosecurity management plans will form a range of options that have been implemented to limit regulatory burden, depending on the biosecurity risk of the operation.
The Biosecurity Act 2015 also provides a mechanism by which the Australian government can ratify the IMO Ballast Water Convention. International vessels have had to manage their ballast water prior to discharge into Australian waters for 15 years, so it will essentially be business as usual from the international vessel perspective.
Domestic ballast water has not escaped scrutiny. In an effort to prevent further spread of marine pests around Australian ports, the new Act also makes it clear that the Commonwealth will regulate domestic ballast water discharges. This part of the Act will not be implemented however, until entry into force of the Convention which is likely to occur in 2017.
After a 12 year wait, the Ballast Water Convention is very close to achieving its entry into force criteria with only 0.18% of world tonnage outstanding. Once entry into force is achieved, all vessels will need to be able to meet the D-2 treatment standard and treat their ballast water using an approved treatment technology by their first renewal survey. But a couple of questions remain: Is there adequate dry dock capacity to cope with demand for installation? And can the approved systems be relied upon to meet the required D-2 standard?
With the implementation of the convention looming, both of these questions put shipowners in a very difficult situation.
Angela Gillham, MIAL
UPDATE
“To ward off the frightening level of increased administrative burden...significant consultation with the Department of agriculture and Water Resources, resource companies and vessel operators has taken place”
BiO security
· Regulatory matters· Infringements/criminal offences
inc dangerous navigation, PCA, safety breaches etc
· Admiralty claims, arrest and ownership matters
· Arbitration and mediation
australianmaritimelawyers.com.auadmin@australianmaritimelawyers.com.au
Ph: 1300-MARITIME (6274-8463) Australia wide, 24-7 service
Advice and representation in all maritime matters including:
· Contractual disputes· Marine and personal insurance· Bills of lading· Carriage of goods· Ship purchase, sale, repair· Environmental
and pollution matters
· Liner shipping· Commercial fisheries· Towage and pilotage· Port operations· Issues arising under the
Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth)
Historically, the international and globalised nature of shipping has meant that the industry, along with aviation, has been excluded from emissions reduction requirements of international agreements. However, shipping was never off the hook. The IMO, explicitly charged with dealing with the issue, has been under extraordinary pressure to make progress. This pressure has been expressed through the establishment of regional arrangements – the natural enemy of the IMO and international shipping – put in place by the EU in protest of IMO inaction.
Governing international climate change negotiations is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). A major impediment to progress at IMO has been the incompatibility between the UNFCCC principle which requires industrialised nations to do the heavy lifting with regard to curbing emissions and the IMO concept of no more favourable treatment, requiring vessels of all flags to be subject to the same regulations to ensure a level playing field.
While a great deal has been achieved at IMO in recent years to mandate ship design and operational fuel efficiency, up until recently, the elephant in the room remained. Is a market based mechanism (MBM) required to drive further emissions reductions in the sector? A fuel levy, a tax on emissions or an emissions trading scheme
– all options would certainly drive up the cost of moving goods by sea.
In this debate, context is important. International shipping is a servant of world trade – when world trade is going gangbusters, so is shipping. Obviously, increases in shipping activity drive up total emissions from the sector. The latest IMO greenhouse gas study published in 2014, shows that international shipping is responsible for 2.2% of global greenhouse gas emissions – down from 2.7% reported 7 years earlier. With the slowdown of the global economy, the GFC saw shipping activity decline significantly over that time, which do doubt accounts for this reduction in the industry’s share of emissions.
Shipping is already by far the most efficient form of long haul bulk transport and given that shipping carries 90% of world trade, emissions generated are modest. It is unthinkable, however, that an industry with emissions close to that of an entire industrialised nation (Germany’s contribution to global CO2 is also around 2.2%) should not be required to undertake emission reduction measures along with the rest of the world.
To complicate matters, there is no doubt that international shipping is being targeted to provide a revenue stream for the financing of climate change related projects – through the Green Climate Fund. An MBM that is applied universally to international
shipping could facilitate this. Up front it should be acknowledged, however, that an MBM on international shipping is simply a tax on world trade at this time where the global economy is trying to find its feet again. Detractors of this as an option point out that an MBM on shipping could create a perverse outcome, whereby the cost of shipping increases to the point where modal shift occurs, to less energy efficient modes of transport.
The path taken by the IMO is, by necessity, a cautious one. Regulations requiring reporting of fuel consumption data – likely to enter into force in 2018 - will take the politics and emotion out of the debate and allow facts to guide policy. Analysis of the data collected will provide the basis for an objective, transparent and inclusive IMO policy debate about the contribution of international shipping to global greenhouse gas emissions reduction.
However, the reality is that it is not simply a question of driving further efficiencies within international shipping. An urgent need exists to raise funds to invest and deploy technology in emerging and developing economies to ensure that standards of living can be raised without the associated unsustainable growth in emissions. Perhaps the shipping industry could play a key role in meeting this noble challenge.
Angela Gillham, MIAL
Progress on shipping CO2 emissionsThe IMO has moved the debate on climate change one large leap forward and is close to agreeing new requirements for international shipping to record and report fuel consumption.
19AUGUST 2016
ENVIRONMENT
Photo by Ian McAllister
20 MIAL MAX
SMSs for DCVsAMSA has recently held workshops on Safety Management Systems (SMS) for Domestic Commercial Vessels (DCV).
The workshops focused on the basics of:
What is an SMS?• Your safety management system is where you identify:
• The hazards and risks in your operation
• The procedures that you, the master and crew plan to implement to reduce those risks
• The processes by which you, the master and crew identify new risks, and
• What you, the master and crew plan to do if a risk turns into reality
How do I implement an SMS?Once you have prepared your SMS, you need all your crew members to put it into practice. This includes:
• Training
• Safety and emergency drills
• Following the procedures for onboard operations
• Entering information in the logbook (including incidents, accidents or near misses)
• Reviewing and updating the SMS
Who’s responsible for the SMS? The vessel owner
When can AMSA check the SMS?AMSA and its delegates in states and territories can ask you to show evidence that you have an SMS in place at any time.
For the latest news about SMSs, subscribe to Domestic Vessels e-News and Working Boats magazine at www.amsa.gov.au/domestic
SAFETY
POSITIVE SAFETY CULTUREMark Griffin, PhD Professor of Management Director, Centre for Safety, The University of Western Australia Business School
The Safety ChallengeA major challenge facing the maritime industry is the plateau in safety performance. Despite the introduction of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, accident rates remain unacceptably high. Although most operators have effective processes and procedures for managing physical risks and hazards, many find it difficult to shape the safety attitudes and behaviours of the people they depend upon. There is widespread recognition that further improvements in safety can only be achieved by focussing on the human element in safety.
In order to manage the human element of safety effectively, operators need to develop a positive safety culture. The benefits not only include improved safety performance, but also improvements in productivity, reliability, and competitiveness. Safety culture is a priority for every shipping company and it has to be managed efficiently and systematically like any other part of the business.
The Research ProjectIn late 2014 AMSA commissioned the University of Western Australia and the University of Queensland to investigate safety culture onboard ships operating in Australian waters.
The overall aim is to determine how to improve safety and prevent accidents and incidents on-board ships.
About the SurveyOver 900 Crewmembers and Officers (Captain / Master, Chief Officer, and Chief Engineer Survey) of international shipping vessels participated in a survey at one of the following survey distribution channels: Seafarer Mission stations (Perth and Brisbane), Brisbane Marine Pilots, and Port State Control Inspections. Surveys were also translated into Mandarin due to the large amount of Chinese seafarers.
The survey contained the following measures:
• Safety culture
• Job demands and decision making
• Employee safety engagement
• Safety behaviour
• Leadership
• Organisational priorities
Progress UpdateThe research team is currently finalising data analysis that focuses on two distinct areas: a) how safety culture is experienced by seafarer b) the impact of the organisations that own and/or operate the ship on safety culture
21AUGUST 2016
ENVIRONMENT
Over the past 12 months, corals in most tropical regions across the world have experienced the most severe mass coral bleaching ever recorded.
By June this year, 22 per cent of coral died on the 3000 reefs of the Great Barrier Reef, with most of the mortality occurring in the far north above Cooktown.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) Chairman Dr Russell Reichelt, said bleaching occurs in hard and soft corals and is triggered by prolonged heat stress which causes them to expel the colourful, symbiotic organisms that live inside their tissue.
“These organisms, called zooxanthellae, normally mask the underlying white skeleton,” Dr Reichelt said.
“Giant clams and sea anemones also contain zooxanthellae, and can consequently bleach under heat stress.”
Under the presence of a strong El Niño, sea temperatures from February to May over much of the Reef were a degree or more over their long-term monthly averages, exceeding all previous temperature records.
The El Nino came on top of an underlying trend of ocean warming caused by climate change.
Dr Reichelt said the mass bleaching on the Reef had been the most damaging ever recorded.
“To date, the surveys we’ve conducted with the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service show 85 per cent of the die-off has occurred between
the tip of Cape York and just north of Lizard Island, 250 kilometres north of Cairns,” he said.
“The impact on reefs between Port Douglas and Cairns varies considerably from no mortality to high levels, while the 1300 kilometre stretch below Cairns has escaped significant rates of mortality.
“Reef waters are now cooling and many live bleached corals will recover.
“However, mortality figures are also likely to increase north of Cairns, as there remain substantial levels of highly stressed corals that are completely bleached, but not yet dead.”
The agency is now turning its attention to measures to help the Reef recover and to protect the more than three-quarters of coral that survived the bleaching event to date.
The priority, emphasised Dr Reichelt, is to build reef resilience in the face of continuing climate change.
“This will require concerted action across all levels of government, industry and the community,” he said.
“Along with supporting global initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, actions can be taken on and near the Reef.
“A high priority is to reduce run-off of fertilisers, sediments and pesticides into waterways that connect to the Reef.
“Reducing nutrient loads, in particular, is critical as corals are adapted to a low nutrient environment, and research shows waters over-enriched with nutrients can lower the thermal tolerance of inshore coral reefs.”
Culling the coral-consuming crown-of-thorns starfish will also continue to act as a key insurance policy, protecting adult coral which can repopulate other reefs downstream.
Source: Great Barrier Reef Marine Authority
Healthy coral Bleached coral Dead coral covered in turfing algae
Above: Bleaching occurs when heat stressed corals expel microscopic algae living inside their tissue.
© Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
Below: The sea surface temperature anomoly for March 2016 for the Great Barrier Reef.
© Bureau of Meteorology.
March sea surface temperature anomaly – Great Barrier Reef (1900-2016)
Sea
surfa
ce te
mpe
ratu
re a
nom
aly
(°C)
5-year running averages shown by black curve Based on a 30-year climatology (1961–1990)Year
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Safety Leadership & CultureAngela Skehan MAppSc BSc(Ed) General Product Development
What makes you trust your colleagues to make the right decisions if an incident occurs? What do they do, on a regular basis that gives you the confidence they’ll help you all have the best chance of walking away safely? How do you know your workmates have the skills and knowledge to respond quickly, in a difficult situation, that you hope will never arise?
You probably see it in the way they speak with others. They may seem proactively encouraging safe practices at work – maybe they hound you to improve. I expect they are disciplined and use the systems you already have in place to ensure everyone’s safety. I suspect they turn up to the drills and maybe, they can even quote from the operation’s safety management system (SMS).
AMSA is taking a more active role stressing the value of a strong safety culture. The definition of culture is often defined as “… the way we do things around here…” We are all leaders and can take responsibility for developing and encouraging safe behaviours within our operations. By taking the lead, you can set the example that reminds others that we have to take safety seriously. It needs it to be a part of our daily work practices, a part of our standard approach to working with others. Individually, and collectively we are all responsible for keeping our work environment safe.
Being able to depend on others is also reinforced if you and your colleagues have all been trained in current, up-to-date safety practices. The way you develop the skills and knowledge is vitally important to the safety of everyone involved. Ideally, you will have attended high quality training. The emphasis on quality, including simulations, will help prepare you for any high risk situation that may eventuate. So, more importantly, you will always be prepared.
Scheduled Extinguishing Agents in the Marine IndustryThe importance of safety at sea relies heavily on correct fire protection procedures which is key to shipboard safety. This applies cruise ships, merchant ships, and naval vessels and is vitally important for the fishing and pleasure craft fleet.
Fire protection equipment containing ozone depleting substances (ODS) and synthetic greenhouse gases (SGG) (scheduled extinguishing agents) used in vessels are regulated under the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989 (the Act) and the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Regulations 1995 (Regulations).
Fire protection is an essential component of marine safety equipment.
RecommendationsThe Fire Protection Industry Board recommends the following actions to ensure that technicians working in the marine industry are compliant with the Act and Regulations while contributing to Australia’s effort in reducing emissions of scheduled extinguishing agents into the atmosphere:
• Builders/owners/operators of vessels with gaseous fire suppression systems containing scheduled extinguishing agents must ensure that the installation and maintenance of these systems is done by licensed technicians.
• All technicians working with scheduled extinguishing agents must hold the appropriate licence, authorisation or permit.
• Regular service and maintenance of gaseous fire suppression systems to ensure full functionality in the event of a fire.
While there is no requirement to replace systems, owners should consider changing systems to environmentally friendly alternatives. There are a number of extinguishing agents that are not regulated under the Act and Regulations.
Do you require a licence?Licences, authorisations and permits are issued by the Fire Protection Industry (ODS & SGG) Board and are required when handling scheduled extinguishing agents in the marine industry. Vessel owners and operators do not need to be licensed, but have obligations to prevent emissions of scheduled extinguishing agents.
Technicians installing, servicing, maintaining or decommissioning systems containing scheduled extinguishing agents must hold an Extinguishing Agent Handling Licence (EAHL).
Technicians or companies who buy, store and/or sell scheduled extinguishing agents must hold an EATA.
Foreign flagged vessels can acquire halon when they are in Australian waters and technicians servicing systems on foreign flagged vessels must hold an EAHL.
Source: Fire Protection Industry (ODS &SGG) Board. Ph: 03) 8892 3131
22 MIAL MAX
SAFETY
23AUGUST 2016
NEW MEMBERS
We are pleased to welcome the following organisations to MIAL:
Ardent Oceania
We are Ardent, a leading marine services company with a strong global network, delivering effective and innovative solutions to our customers in the shipping and offshore industries. We are your trusted partner in challenging circumstances, protecting the interests of our customers and the environment through applied ingenuity. Built on the heritage of two respected salvage companies, Titan Salvage and Svitzer Salvage, our offer covers risk mitigation, emergency response, wreck removal and offshore decommissioning.
Within Oceania, we maintain the largest specialist spread of salvage equipment at our three strategic facilities in Sydney, Cairns and Karratha; supply of which has been key to our response and solution to a number of high profile and successful projects.
Ardent Oceania holds approved training provider status with Lloyd’s Register and delivers accredited training in marine emergency towage and other salvage related activities, including the world renowned “Salvage Academy Master Class”.
The key contact is: Justin Charlesworth M: 0400 882 554 For further information go to: ardentglobal.com
Australian Maritime Lawyers
Australian Maritime Lawyers provide advice and representation in all maritime matters including:
Regulatory matters * Infringements/criminal offences including dangerous navigation, PCA, safety breaches etc. * Admirality claims, arrest and ownership matters * Issues arising under the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) * Arbitration and mediation * Contractual disputes * Marine and personal insurance * Bills of lading * Carriage of goods * Ship purchase, sale, repair * Environmental and pollution matters * Liner shipping * Commercial fisheries * Towage and pilotage * Port operations * Salvage
The key contact is: Nick Boyden M: 1300 6274 8463 For further information go to: australianmaritimelawyers.com.au
DOF
DOF owns and operates a large global fleet of offshore support vessels of various types, some of these vessels operates in Australia on various contracts to Oil Majors. For the Asia Pacific region, DOF operates these vessels from the office in Perth.
The key contact is: Darren McCormick Ph: +61 8 9278 8700 For further information go to: dof.no
ERGT Australia
ERGT Australia is the nations’ leading specialist provider in safety and emergency response training for high risk industries. With training centres across Perth, Darwin and Melbourne, ERGT Australia is well positioned to comprehensively service industries including oil and gas, maritime, aviation and defence.
ERGT Australia is the only AMSA approved training provider in Victoria delivering the STCW suite of courses, including Certificate of Safety Training (CoST) initial course and the Continued Competence courses for CoST, Certificate of Proficiency and Certificate of Competence. These courses, as well as Fast Rescue Craft initial and Continued Competence are also offered at our Perth training centre and in due course in Victoria. ERGT Australia is also the only training provider to offer the Certificate of Safety Training Continued Competence course over one calendar day at one location.
ERGT is now recognised as an approved Delegate of Australia Skills Quality Authority (ASQA). ASQA invited high performing RTOs with a history of compliance with the national standards to become a Delegate RTO. Please see bit.ly/ASQAERGT for more information.
ERGT Australia is committed to surpassing the expectations of our clients by providing high quality, industry relevant, and immersive training.
The key contact is: Alex Fernando: 0402 034 358 For further information go to: ergt.com.au
Survival Systems International
Survival Systems International are a lifeboat manufacturing and service company that provides maritime and the oil & gas industry with safe equipment, the instruction and the knowledge to achieve a safe evacuation when an emergency occurs on an ofshore installation or vessel.
The key contact is: Sam Dye: 0410 711 881. For further information go to: survivalsystemsinternational.com
24 MIAL MAX
AN INTRODUCTION TO OFFSHORE OIL & GAS – MARITIME OPERATIONS
MIAL, Level 1, 4 Princes Street Port MelbourneTime: 9am – 4.30pm
Photo courtesy of Brian Cutler
Course OverviewThe Introduction to Offshore Oil & Gas – Maritime Operations is a comprehensive one day course that educates participants on the fundamental aspects of this complex area from a maritime perspective. It will enable attendees to understand the process sequence from exploration to demobilisation.
The course focuses on introducing maritime operations in the offshore oil and gas industry including the introduction of key terms.
Learning OutcomesAs a result of attending this course, participants will be informed about:• The importance of the maritime
operations to the offshore oil & gas sector• The multi-faceted and diverse vessel
demand - across the range of field exploration stages
• The process sequence and stages from exploration to demobilisation
• The commercial realities and market impact that underpin maritime operations in the sector
• Utilisation of manpower and living and working conditions offshore
• International and national links in the field of maritime operations in offshore oil and gas particularly in the area of policy and regulation, including the role and functions of MIAL
Who should attend• Anyone who wants an introduction
into maritime operations in offshore oil and gas
• Participants are encouraged to have completed the MIAL Introduction to Shipping Course or have a basic understanding of maritime terms.
To book: Go to mial.com.au or phone 03) 9647 6000
Standard Pricing* | MIAL Member: $750.00 | Non-Member: $1200.00Bulk Pricing - 3 or more save 15%* | MIAL Member: $637.50 | Non-Member: $1020.00
*prices include GST
