STCW revision must address fatigue
Posted on | February 8, 2010 | 4 Comments
Full marks to Clay for his “clarifying the issues” post, which sets out the realities which must be confronted if the Manila conference on STCW is to realise any of its aims.
He is also right to point out the unwelcome guest at this particular feast, namely the ongoing problem of hours of rest and work. Fatigue, on many types of ship, is a major problem, if not an absolute scandal, one that could rebound upon the industry , much as did its use of asbestos, if the premature death of seafarers can be associated with their working practices, which is not without the realms of possibility.
But almost as important is the failure to accept that in the 21st century, it is no longer acceptable to have exhausted people, whose brains are barely functioning, controlling enormous mobile pieces of machinery operating in a hostile environment. It is unacceptable in the skies, on the roads, in factories and in public transport, and it remains a matter of some curiosity that a similar attitude does not prevail on the seas.
How can we recruit and train seafarers, asked Clay, with the right qualifications for an increasingly demanding job? Perhaps, if the “right qualifications” include an ability to do without almost any sleep, that is one thing! But, at the end of the day, if we are able only to recruit people who will tolerate life at sea because they have no other choice of occupation, we will have signally failed.
The operation of ships is essential work, it can be rewarding, interesting and challenging. It can lead to other exciting employment in the maritime industries, offer early responsibilities and decent pay. So one ought not to have any hesitation in recommending seafaring to any bright young person.
But when the same intelligent potential recruit asks you what the working hours are in seafaring, what on earth do you answer? “Go on-stop on” might have been an adequate answer some years ago, when children were being sent down mines and up chimneys.
You can burble on at length about the fact that ships run 24/7, but when you reveal, hesitatingly, that the maximum working hours are being dramatically reduced from 98 to 91 hours per week, you might be prepared for a sudden reduction in the interest in a sea career being evidenced by the inquirer.
Just as young people in the 21st century are unprepared to be unable to communicate with their friends for weeks on end, because a shipowner cannot provide them with internet facilities, so they will have similar intolerance of what seemed tolerable to a stoic older generation.
Which means that if we are to have safe ships, operated by the best seafarers available, we have to start manning them with an adequacy of seafarers, not some crazed notional number inscribed on a “safe” manning certificate, or the least we can get away with.
Comments
4 Responses to “STCW revision must address fatigue”
Leave a Reply
February 9th, 2010 @ 9:21 pm
Nicely written post. I agree with what you said especially about the need to do more about the rest hours. Lets hope some good comes out of this meeting.
February 15th, 2010 @ 12:43 pm
Brilliant article, Sir, and as somebody who joined sea in 1973, quit sailing in 1983, and is currently revalidating certificates, I can say this – we will have to address the rest hours and fatigue issues.
1) 98 to 91 would have been a joke, if it was not so grim.
2) Atleast 30 minutes prior and after duty hours, needs to be factored in, since it is impossuble to assume that the person is rested till the very last minute before coming on duty.
Regards/Veeresh Malik
New Delhi/India
March 28th, 2010 @ 5:31 am
Nice article, as I write this on a 12 hr shift after maybe 4 hours sleep, and the same tomorrow…
April 14th, 2010 @ 10:39 am
A very important issue, which like you say is just not being addressed.
does anyone have the agenda of the Manila Conference in June? Is a disscusion about fatigue on it?