“Seafarers the scum of the earth, says judge”. He was, if I recall, dealing with the aftermath of what appeared to me a low-level riot in Southampton, with a Cunarder’s crew celebrating in an unrestrained fashion, in the course of which part of the city was wrecked.

Well, that was more than a half century ago, but it often seems that in a world even more dependent upon shipping for its food, fuel and fashionable consumer goods, the seafarers does not appear to have greatly advanced up the social scale.

Nobody knows any seafarers, so ships might be manned by Martians for all they believe. If they did, or if they had some inkling of their dependence upon them, they might appreciate seafarers more.

There is a first class barrage of good sense about the need to lobby on behalf of seafarers available in the latest issue of Alert!, the International Maritime Human Element Bulletin.

Written by Lloyd’s Register CEO Richard Sadler, this is on the issue of all the stakeholders in shipping recognising their shared responsibilities.

But he rapidly focuses on the need to empower seafarers and stop the erosion of their social status. He suggests that the Marine Labour Convention will help in their social conditions, living conditions, working conditions and rewards. But it is the attitude of others to seafarers which he says need to be changed, and this Year of the Seafarer is not a bad time to implement this attitudinal shift.

The seafarer (Sadler describes them as “the bedrock of the industry”) are still woefully treated. Why, he asks, are they treated by immigration officials with such comparative discourtesy to aircrew, who even have their own dedicated channels when they arrive at airports.

You do not, he says, see aircrew forced to remain aboard their aircraft, and have their shore leave denied.

“Are seafarers such a security risk and so unwelcome that they cannot be offered the same courtesy? – he asks – was the brave pilot of the aircraft which landed in the Hudson River arrested and held under bail?

“You cannot” he points out “have a safe, sustainable or responsible business without sound technology that is suitably managed and operated by suitable people in a suitable culture and environment”.

And that perhaps is the operative word – culture. If we have a downright oppressive culture in ports, with officials swaggering aboard ship throwing their weight about, we will not retain the good people we need to operate our ships safely.

Somebody has to grasp this nettle, rein in the jobsworths stamping up the gangways, and teach them some plain, honest manners.

They need to recognise that they are in somebody else’s home, they need to realise they are dealing with important people whose job is every bit as essential as theirs.

That way, we might lever up the social status of seafarers just a few notches.

See www.he-alert.org Issue 23, May 2010

Commenting about “system design and integration”, he suggested that much of what was being inflicted on the industry, and indeed the hapless folk at sea who were required to make it all work, was somewhat unmanageable.

You can see where he is coming from, when a relief chief engineer drafted in to replace the ship’s regular officer who had been forced to take unscheduled leave, was unable to comprehend the highly sophisticated control system, when alarms started to go off in all directions, and the engine started to effectively manage itself. Crunch!

Oh dear, where did we go wrong? And the point was that while the regular chief engineer had been given the best possible briefing in the machinery of the ship he had taken from the shipyard, nobody else had. Ship and machinery specific training is now that crucial.

It’s not the first time such a thing has happened. Who recalls the damage done by the ship which decided to go shopping in New Orleans after the engine management system developed an independent spirit quite beyond the capabilities of the ship’s staff.

Bernard Twomey identified a number of areas which he thinks are “unique to the maritime industry”, which are not a matter where breasts should swell with pride. He points to “fragmented links between stakeholders”, the fact that suppliers have poor visibility, while the specification process leaves much to be desired. System weaknesses emerge from such problems.

He recommends a more thorough system of hazard investigation, stressing the importance of human engineering and taking account of the skill set of the operator. We need to know, as we contemplate the lovely consoles and amazing controls in some new ocean greyhound – “what can go wrong when something breaks”. We should also learn rather more from what they do in other industries. A safety case, he says is fine, but real “assurance” is better.

What a sensible approach. But will it happen, as long as we source equipment and components from wherever they are cheapest, and the shipbuilder operates a “take it or pay a lot extra” approach over the specification of the new ship? We will need a step-change in procurement attitudes and processes, if we are to see genuine improvement.

Let’s forget the various traders in carbon and concentrate on something rather more worthwhile, such as the engineers and technologists who, rather than the scientists, really will make the difference.

Speaking last week at a Maritime London gathering, Lloyd’s Register’s Marine Director Tom Boardley was able to give only a range of options, which might emerge from the Cop 15 chaos, as it was still work in progress.

But he was clear about the opportunities presented to his organisation by the perceived need for cleaner, greener ships. And all over the world of marine technology, bright people are considering how ships can be made more efficient, how to make the expensive fuel go further, and how to minimise the impact that a ship makes upon the environment.

There is a whole raft of improvement that can be made in the realms of fuel management, while engine manufacturers are already well advancd in the reduction of harmful emissions through a whole range of measures that will produce fewer of these gases without sacrificing speed. Thereare all sorts of improvements that seem possible and which will aggregate to substantial reductions in the environmental footprint, from hydrodynamic enhancements, to the vast arrays of solar panels on the garage roof of a large car carrier. Better paints, smoother underwater forms, more efficient propellers – it all will help.

On the operational front, there is a huge amount that can be done, and to existing ships, moreover, to smarten up charters so that ships do not steam at high speed between ports, only to wait ages for a berth at the destination. Last week there were more than 40 large bulk carriers swinging around their anchors off the New South Wales port of Newcastle, which is not known for its brilliant holding ground. How much wasted effort is encapsulated in that simple statement of fact?

There is, says Boardley, a new interest in the concept of the nuclear merchant ship, which might surprise some people and enrage others, but has a good deal of economic and environmental sense in the idea, of a merchant ship that will need refuelling but once in its operational life.

And then there is recycling, and a vast tonnage of ships which are less efficient and more expensive to operate, and which could be suitably disposed of. It is all grist to somebody’s mill, and will cheer up shipbuilders no end, even though the more hopeful are already offering“greener” ships! And really, nobody had to wait for the politicians to unravel something meaningful from Cop 15. It is there for the asking.