Seeking the “perfect” ship
Posted on | March 16, 2010 | No Comments
There is no such thing as the deficiency-free ship. Why would there be, when there are deficiencies apparent in a brand new aircraft, or train, or house, for that matter? It is a question of degree or scale of the fault. In aviation the aircraft will be able to fly if certain deficiencies occur, but if other more safety critical faults are detected by the systems, it will stay firmly on the ground.
Why do charterers think that ships are so very different? They throw up their hands in horror when they discover that a ship they are being offered has a Condition of Class against its name, rejecting it for their business, without a second glance at the detail. And yet the CoC actually demonstrates that the fault has been picked up by the classification society (probably because it was reported by the owners’ technical team) and has been appropriately noted to be fixed at a specified or unspecified time in the future. If it was that serious, class would have exercised its power to stop the ship there and then.
The charterer is, when he summarily rejects the ship over some footling deficiency that has been honestly stated, suggesting that he knows better than either class or the owner of the ship. But perhaps he has a valid reason as he is not prepared to risk his reputation, over a deficiency that people other than his own experts, have identified. Memories of the mud which stuck to charterers, after a number of high profile disasters revealed that the ships were “clean” from a class viewpoint, are still fresh in people’s minds.
Perhaps the terminology of a CoC needs to be clarified by the societies which issue such a condition. As such it is a reasonable tool, noting a defect which needs to be remedied, but at a convenient time, as it is not regarded as presently safety critical. Speaking last month in London Unicom’s Robert Thompson suggested that that CoCs needed to be worded with greater clarity and more harmony between the societies, so that charterers would not be so alarmed.
At present, a “live” CoC blackens the name of the ship, and the charterer, who will probably have other choices, simply moves on to the next vessel being offered. One thinks back to the old Tanker Advisory Center in New York, a one-man band which simply noted reported casualties which ships had been involved in, and marked them down accordingly. Read without any discrimination at all by charterers, this was a profoundly unsatisfactory gauge of ship quality, with the “record” standing for years, even after ships had been repaired, or changed owners. In one notorious case, a new vessel had been slightly damaged in the builder’s yard, the damage having been made good before delivery to its blue chip owners. But the incident had been reported, and the owner’s beautiful new ship had a “record” before they even had a chance to trade it.
Transparency is a good, even an essential, thing, and anything that encourages owners to keep their ships in tip-top condition must be encouraged. But the Condition of Class could do with a bit more work done on it, to stop frightening the horses.
Comments
Leave a Reply