In two  months, the great, the good and the not so great or good will gather at the Connecticut Maritime Association’s annual three-day jamboree.

One of the perennial topics will be the image of shipping.

Although the economic challenges facing the industry are likely to overshadow most of our worries about our reputations, it might be useful to examine the degree of damage done by cases such as the sinking on Christmas day of Vinalines Queen , north-east of the Philippines. Just one crew member survived.

P&I clubs have campaigned to increase awareness of the need to test cargoes independently, and for safe loading of nickel and other ores. But several organisations failed even to comment on this latest tragic casualty, honourably excluding the dry bulk shipowners’ association Intercargo.

This gives a hint why we are not very effective in fighting our own corner.

In most of these dry bulk losses, three things have been noticeable: questionable or incorrect cargo documentation, no P&I survey and no third-party preshipment survey.

Also, there is usually an element of economic pressure behind the decision not to test cargoes through an independent party.

Under the circumstances, it is not too early to suspect that the loss of Vinalines Queen was caused by mishandling dangerous cargo. Industry failure to promptly regret the loss of life makes us all look uncaring.

A problem of this nature — one that has gone on for much too long — raises the suspicion that we, as an industry, lack the integrity generally expected of businesses in the 21st century.

There is a job to be done on the issue of cruise ship size, and above all, their height. You don’t have to own an over-active imagination to wonder about the stability of these things. Sure, passengers don’t weigh much (at least compared to iron ore) but there is some major reassurance to be done in this department; not easy as long as the cameras are focussed upon the Italian wreck, which facilitates an easy inspection of how much ship there is under the waterline, and above. Sure, the Titanic sank on an even keel, but where’s the progress? -worried potential passengers might ask. They need precise information and something more reassuring than damaged stability calculations which are quite unbelievably complicated or experts muttering about “cross flooding arrangements”.

They did a pretty good job, all things considered, getting what boats they did away from the listing ship, so somebody was doing what they had been trained to. But that famous phrase –“everyone panics in their own language” came to mind as the reports trickle in and the nightmare of evacuating a multi-national crowd, of every age and physical ability, needs a firm explanation. Can we do it – yes we can! But exactly how, professor? And 100 years on, aren’t there better systems than those represented by lifeboats. People aren’t stupid and possibly even remember ships which have lurched violently when experiencing a steering gear malfunction and thrown pianos around, and others which, despite all the duplication of systems, had to be towed back to port. They need a cleaner bill of health for cruising, or they will be holidaying elsewhere.

Finally, there needs to be a bit more insurance in the human element department. No point in having bridge resource management, if an individual goes off on a tangent and starts to drive as the mood takes him. Cultural change may need more than a few day’s simulator training.

And so, on August 4, we are confronted with a modern version of the same story, reported from India.  The Pavit, a tanker supposedly registered in Panama, is said to have run aground near Juhu on the west coast of India.

It appears – though reports are somewhat sketchy, as they always are – that the Pavit drifted between 800 and 900 nautical miles after being abandoned, for some reason, off the coast of Oman.  It appears that the Pavit drifted for about two weeks following the alleged abandonment, and at some point was “reported sunk”.

Imagine the surprise of the Indian authorities, including the Ministry of Defence, when the Pavit turned up. A Directorate-General of Shipping inquiry has reportedly been convened to determine how the Pavit, without a crew, was able to penetrate the supposed security layers of the Indian Marine Police, the Coast Guard, and the Navy, and be undetected until it ran aground.

There are a few red faces in Mumbai and Delhi, particularly in light of the heightened security that has supposedly been in effect since the deadly attack of terrorists, from the sea, in Mumbai several years ago.  Not surprisingly, the vessel does not have in place protection and liability (P&I) cover.  It is not known how much oil remains aboard the vessel.

While all of this does not speak well of India’s “maritime domain awareness”, as the Coast Guard puts it, there is some doubt as to whether nations bordering on other oceans are in fact better prepared than India appears to be. Admiral Verma, the Chief of the Indian Naval Staff, has called for an investigation of why the vessel’s Automatic Identification System (AIS) did not alert shore-based authorities as to its location, and approach to the coast.  Another question relates to the efficiency of shore-based radar.

The vulnerability of coastal areas, other than ports, to stealth attacks remains full of unanswered questions.  It is hoped that after the authorities (outside of India) stop laughing at what happened, the shortcomings of AIS, in particular, will get a closer look from the IMO and the various military authorities that are supposedly in charge of security along out coasts.

With over 160 posts and over a thousand visitors a month I would like to say a big thank you to my contributors in particular Michael Grey and to the readers whose comments have me enthralled.

Here is an extract of a video interview that I had with Ship Management International at the event.

So the news that our friend Richard Sadler, chief executive of Lloyd’s Register, has proposed a coalition of major shipping organisations is balm for the persistent frustration that many of us feel, when we blame everyone else for not getting things fixed.

I fully support his idea.

Since my endorsement of any new idea has, I hear, been considered by some persons to be tantamount to the seal of doom, let’s examine Richard’s suggestion while there’s still time.

Richard would like to see a coalition of interests emerge, that will among other things define shipping’s role in international commerce.

I believe that he is right. While one must surely respect the separate status of the various national chambers of shipping, and of the International Chamber of Shipping, Intertanko, BIMCO, the Oil Companies International Marine Forum, the International Association of Classification Societies, the International Group of P&I Clubs, the World Shipping Council, InterManager, Intercargo, the Cruise Lines International Association and the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators, to name only some worthy and venerable organisations, Richard rightly points out that the lack of integrated policy planning and decision-making weakens or dilutes the role shippiing plays in policymaking.

Shipping, he notes, must take control of its own destiny. This is roughly the point made by Dr. Helmut Sohmen about twenty years ago, and one hopes that Richard’s proposal will get a friendlier reception than his did.

The specific arguments can be summarised as follows:

- The existence of a formal shipping coalition would make it clear who speaks for the industry;

-Issues of importance that do not get adequate attention might now “have their day in court”;

-Direct interaction with seafarers and environmentalists, as well as governments, could be undertaken on a more regular, and more effective, basis. A real dialogue, rather than a barren exchange of rigidly stated positions, could be productive. This is urgently needed.

For example, an industry-wide body could foster constructive dialogue on fatigue and the levels of stress now imposed on seafarers.

Richard Sadler has pointed out that the constantly increasing regulatory workload imposed upon officers at sea and in port is happening at the same time that many seasoned seafarers are finding that life ashore has growing allure.

The result may be the promotion of less experienced officers into senior commands.

Moreover, ships are being designed to accommodate smaller complements, and governments often advocate reductions in crew size. At some point, we must cope with the impact that these trends might have on safety. One trembles for the fate of an industry that takes its supply of skilled labour for granted!

The same treatment might help in addressing MARPOL-related issues, particularly those involving our failure to adopt a satisfactory standard for oily-water separators;

-and to effectively implement national enforcement of the International Safety Management Code (Chapter IX
of SOLAS) as now made clear by the Deepwater Horizon disaster;

-and to deal effectively with unanswered technical issues of ballast water management;

-and with regard to ship recycling;

-and to bring to a satisfactory end those circular discussions that avoid the core problem of piracy: namely, a practical international convention for the detention, trial and punishment of pirates.

One also regrets that our industry, like a maiden in a Victorian melodrama tied to the railroad tracks, often appears to be helplessly waiting for rescue by some handsome stranger.

Richard Sadler is telling us that we really should be taking a more active role in our own salvation. He is certainly right.

I agree that the proliferation of vetting officers, port state control inspectors, trades union compliance people, and sundry other “cops with badges”, are part of a hydra-headed problem that just seems to grow and grow. I share your sense of grievance, and, after all, I do not work aboard ship.

I don’t think it’s a question of politeness, although that commodity is in short supply. It is a question of addressing the problem of how “ship’s business” is conducted, in a constructive way. The ever-growing burden on the ship’s officer seldom, nowadays, gets the high-profile attention that it deserves.

The problem of job satisfaction isn’t going away. Officers complain about micromanagement by those ashore. The expanding load of compliance paperwork has been a problem since the Marpol convention brought port state control into prominence.

In a way, we are victims of our own failures. The biggest failure has always been our inability to solve problems in a concerted way. This has led to what might be called a layered approach. Successive, uncoordinated layers of regulation — a sort of multiple belt-and-braces attitude — has a lot to do with the worrying number of experienced officers that are now abandoning seagoing berths.

Take tankers. Flag state control failed to deal with tank cleaning explosions and oil spills. The industry responded with its own vetting programmes. IMO presented us with Marpol. The port states launched their own elaborate overlay of “control” practices, on both a national and regional basis. When this was not deemed enough, in came the ISM Code. When terrorism appeared after 9/11, the ISPS Code was added, plus national “maritime domain awareness”
Regulation, particularly in the U. S. A.

I’m not finished. Then came the International Labour Organisation’s Maritime Labour Convention. The individual conventions on such subjects as ballast water and emissions are also either here or on the way. Each has brought with it additions to the shoreside boarding parties, which our correspondent identifies with youthful cases of acne and other postadolescent skin problems. No wonder experienced officers are being driven ashore!

“Imagine”, one participant said wistfully. “Maybe we could even find some answers”. Imagine. Maybe.

And so some of us got together over beer and herring at the Friesische Keller, and made a list of what (after quite a lot of beer, and then schnapps) we decided to call, a bit self-importantly, “The Hamburg List”.
The next day, quite late in the morning, it still looked like a worthwhile effort.

The Hamburg List

1.  Piracy, that old bugaboo: what if the IMO were to prepare a convention on the suppression of piracy. What if such a convention provided an internationally-recognised  legal basis authorising the arrest, detention, trial and confinement
of pirates? Such an instrument would specifically permit military intervention, “hot pursuit” and a court venue, and secure place or places for the imprisonment of convicted pirates. We’re doing it now for Radovan Karadzic and Charles Taylor; why not for pirates.

2. The human rights of seafarers. It is clear that the various ILO conventions fail to adequately address the ways in which mariners are treated when they come into contact with the not-so-tender mercies of national states. The United States, and its often oppressive justice officials, are certainly in the premier league, but they have rivals: the treatment meted out to Capt. Mangouras of the Prestige, and the officers of the Hebei Spirit, just two examples, demonstrates the global nature of the problem. Couldn’t the International Labour Organisation, and the International Maritime Organisation, find time to seriously address the civil/human rights dilemma. We stormed ahead with the ISPS Code. Now let’s recognise that we must do something, in this year of the seafarer, for the seafarer.

3. Marpol. And no, dear friends, it’s NOT about air emissions. Fancy that!
We are speaking of another mariner-related issue, namely the oily water separator scandal that, in one form or another, has oppressed the industry for decades. Of course, nobody condones the alteration of oil record books. Nor do we excuse dumping of slops at sea. But, as Robert Bishop of V Ships and others keep asking, when will we accept responsibility for requiring an OWS design with filters that do not require replacement every fourth day? How can we countenance continued and repeated OWS prosecutions by the U. S. Department of Justice when the industry can’t get its act together on a technically effective, user-friendly design. The class societies blame the yards, who blame the naval architects. Dr. Mitropoulos, let us work together and end this shameful state of affairs; it’s gone on much too long.

4. Access to adequate reception facilities. This is closely related to 3 above. And yes, we’re still talking about it. And talking. And talking. Perhaps port state national governments may one day advise us when, if ever, they plan to live up to their explicit duty to ensure that such facilities are in fact available at their ports and terminals. If in fact the port states can’t muster the will to comply, let’s amend Marpol to legalise what many hapless engineers are often forced to do illegally now.

5. The IMO flag state audit scheme.
This is an IMO success story, so far. It is also the crown jewel of the Mitropoulos legacy. Much work, however, remains.  For example, we need to eliminate the problem of work performed by fugitive or phantom classification societies, particularly in the Far East. And, of course, what recognised organisations can and cannot do, particularly on behalf of substandard flag state administrations. Finally, we must redouble our efforts to restrict and eliminate those substandard administrations. The (mandatory) Audit Scheme, like the ISM Code, is a means to an end. It must be implemented.

6. Quality issues matter. This means that stakeholders that patronise substandard operators, classification societies or flag state administrations, or that finance them, need to be identified. No doubt some interesting patterns will be discovered.

7. Make the ISM Code, word for word, mandatory under the national law of each State Party to SOLAS. ISM is Chapter IX of SOLAS. The United States is a Party to SOLAS. But is ISM fully a part of OPA ’90? Is the U. S. enforcing it? No prizes for the correct answer.

8. Instead of thumb-sucking discussions about “the image of the industry”, let’s do something about it.
Let us speak to the world, not just to one another. Commercial shipping has a proud record; there are excellent ways of making this known. The internet is one.

We knew that merely preaching these values would not in itself be a  guarantee of success, it had to be a collaborative effort, as after all, the oxygen and survivability of a blog is its links  and comments and its ability to spark debate in the community and dovetail with other similar blogs.

So we are now glad to see that this type of collaboration across the maritime blogosphere has now materialised in the shape of a new initiative to draw attention to the maritime industry’s unsung heroes -those individuals that are making a difference day to day in shaping innovative companies.

The PortFire 40 concept is in its infancy but the Clay Maitland blog team are keen to be part of this wider ‘ginger group’ and welcome contributions from our readers to bring the spotlight on our lesser known industry leaders and innovators, so please drop us a line if there is anyone you feel fits the bill.

You can find out more about the Portfire 40 initiative here and here and also see the maritime bloggers involved.

Governments have many functions (arguably too many in the modern world), but the repatriation of package tourists does not immediately come to mind. It is scarcely a life or death situation, even though several days eating airport sandwiches may effectively shorten one’s life.

Now, of course, with the contrails once again criss-crossing the skies, those out of pocket as a result of this unforeseen natural occurrence, will be looking for somebody to blame, and as a logical consequence, somebody to sue. Clearly, even the best lawyer is unlikely to recommend a suit against God, but the various regulators who have implemented the “no-fly” ruling may well find themselves targeted.

The airlines themselves, bound by the mad EU regulation to provide sustenance to those whose flights have been cancelled, will be well advised to hire in some additional extra legal assistance over the coming months.

It would have been a different matter, one suspects if an aircraft had come to grief as a result of the ash cloud, or even experienced the heart stopping moments of those aboard that 747 which lost all four of its engines over Sumatra, all those years ago, landing with its captain and co-pilot peering through the opaque windscreen effectively sandblasted by the particles which had suffocated its propulsion systems. It is a pretty brave person who will suggest that the airline regulators were being overly risk-averse when Eyjafyoll blew up the other day.

Among all the blubbering and blaming, it is also worth offering a word of praise, not least to the ferry companies, who swung into action in a big way and showed once again how big capacious ships can help to evaporate the queues of people in a way that other modes of transport struggle to achieve. And a brand new cruise ship lifted 2000 people out of Bilbao.

Nobody noticed, of course, except a few hacks who accused the ferry companies of profiteering. It is why ships are still enormously important, even though aviation gets all the publicity.

The first two volumes, “The Green Stick” and “The Infernal Grove”, are still worth reading, although, as if to demonstrate the validity of his working title, Muggeridge never got beyond those first two volumes.

As I contemplate the vast intellectual steppe of much of our industry, the amount of wasted time and effort, or apparent effort, is striking.

Years ago, I was obliged to attend frequent meetings of the Shipping Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the initials of which are of course UNCTAD.  We of course decided that these letters stood for “Under No Circumstances Take a Decision.”

Such as the attitude of our famous shipping associations on many subjects, one of which is that familiar chestnut “The Image of Shipping” (TIOS).

TIOS, like piracy, is the perennial topic that has filled a thousand teacups, endowed numerous conferences, and led (so far) absolutely nowhere.

The venerable associations of shipowners and managers never seem to actually get to grips with an action programme.

That would require making a decision, and decisions are not what we make in this business.  We are, however, famously good at holding conferences and meetings.  Oh, and blaming the IMO.  This is odd, because compared to the various associations and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) in which our industry abounds, the IMO is a virtual model of Napoleonic decisiveness.

The solution to the real or perceived problem of TIOS is simply to engage the environmental community in an inclusive and cooperative effort to establish a regime for cleaner seas.

In practice, this means simply sitting down with them on a regular basis, and even drinking some tea.  The problem is that our venerable associations (VAs) are not geared up to do this.  Their boards of directors are largely selected for their ability to embrace inertia as a guiding principle of life.

As a result, the media, and the public at large, never actually get a clear picture of how much our industry has done to further the protection and remediation of the marine environment.  In many countries, the work that governments have done to prevent oil spills, such as those that haven’t happened in the last 25 years or so, and to clean up those that have, are simply never made known even to the cable television stations, like the Discovery Channel in the United States, that enjoy this sort of subject.

I must admit that at a recent seminar in Abu Dhabi, I pointed an accusing finger at one industry representative, and made the statement that nothing much had changed since the organisation that he represents had been founded in the early 20th century.

On reflection, this somewhat inaccurate statement was very unfair to that organisation’s founders a century ago.  This is because I have noticed that nearly every such organisation was founded and led, in its early stages, by one or more men (there were very few women, unfortunately) of considerable vision and willingness to lead.  One such leader was a Norwegian of extensive talent named Erling D. Naess, who will be the subject of one or more Maitland blogs to come.  We miss him!