Page 27: of Marine News Magazine (November 2013)

PARALLEL UNIVERSEOur counterparts who fall under the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) would have stayed on the ground. Ac- cording to the FAA, an airline pilot needs a 10-hour mini- mum rest period. The rule sets a 10-hour minimum rest period prior to the ß ight duty period. The rule also man- dates that a pilot must have an opportunity for eight hours of uninterrupted sleep within the 10-hour rest period. Could the ship Master described in the previous paragraph comply with the sample FAA ruling? Absolutely not. A Þ nal example involves some boats of less than 1600 gross tons involved in international trade may only carry one engineer. The boat in question has a Safe Manning CertiÞ cate issued by a competent authority that states only one licensed engineer is required aboard the boat. Alas, due to the lack of technical engineering personnel aboard this boat, most of the repairs are performed by shore based en- tities while the boat is in port. Typically, these repairs are supervised by the boatÕs engineer because that engineer will ultimately have to live with any outcome. The repairs occur at all hours due to berth scheduling. Our engineer has been up without a Òrest periodÓ for 15 hours. When questioned upon his lack of rest, the engineer stated, ÒWhen the boat is tied up, I am considered a shore based engineer so the rest rules do not apply.Ó Considering when the boat lets go and proceeds to its next berth, and when our engineer will be required to work, will the Port State Control tasked with enforcing the MLC 2006 put an end to this practice? That answer may be as unclear as some of the other provisions of the code which are largely left open to interpretation. EFFECTIVE MANNING PRACTICES Effective manning is, as it turns out, more than a Òcatch phraseÓ. One shipping company representative stated, ÒYou could have 40 crewmembers aboard ship and still have fatigue problems, because it comes down to fatigue management.Ó Given that the norm for crewing most ships now is 20 versus the hypothetical 40 crew, who will be called to replace an individual due to lack of rest when there is no one to replace our fatigued crewman? Nominally, it is Þ ne to increase crew size, but under the present monetary compensation system, increasing crew size means someone is going to make less money. On char- ter ships, as in the Þ rst example, the crew will make less money collectively if more crew signed on. The easy an- swer is to increase rates to provide for the increased crew or suffer the cost of a detained ship. Which is cheaper? Some company ships have added a line to the Rest hour sheets and others to the overtime sheets attesting to the fact that the crewman has followed the MLC 2006 rest require- ments. Typically, this notation is positioned immediately next to the signature line. A crewman signing on the line certiÞ es compliance with the Rest Requirements or faces dis- missal. If the crewman puts in the hours actually worked or doesnÕt rest and is not in compliance with MLC, then that crewman will lose his job. Hence, it is more than likely that seafarers are being coerced into falsifying the work/rest logs. Those companies that do Ð as was discovered by our ship in- spector as previously described Ð are trying to skirt the MLC 2006 treaty and thereby enjoy a competitive advantage by not hiring more crew to allow more rest and avert causalities due to fatigue. Crew advocacy groups have advised crewmen to sign the sheets only after striking the attestation clause.CAUSE & CORRECTION: WILL MLC PROVIDE THE PANACEA ?Human error is responsible for over 58 percent of all ship casualties and fatigue represents the largest portion of human error for major claims according to a Protection and Indemnity Club. ThatÕs a fact. How can fatigue be re- duced? It is simple, really: by using the MLC (2006) Code to effectively enforce its mandates equally and unilaterally and getting experienced Port State Control inspectors who are able to understand operations and decipher the Ògun deckingÓ(falsiÞ cation of records) on rest logs. Unless the MLC is enforced unilaterally throughout international trading ß eets, there will remain a competitive advantage for those who gun deck the rest logs. The practice also de- feats the ultimate goal(s) of MLC and OPA 90 itself, some of which include fair treatment of seafarers and the provi- sion of a safe workplace for all. From this side of the pond Ð and whether adhering to MLC (2006) or OPA 90 rest rules Ð there are lessons to be learned. The practice of fudging work and rest logs isnÕt unique to any one sector of the marine world, ß ag or na- tionality. Nor should it be tolerated. SAFETYThe Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) : ?On a tanker, a li- censed individual or seaman may not be permitted to work more than 15 hours in any 24 hour period, or more than 36 hours in any 72-hour period, except in an emergency or a drill. In this subsection, ?work? includes any administrative duties associated with the vessel whether performed on board the vessel or onshore.? If a crewman works 15 hours in one day that crewman must have the compensatory rest period off in order to attain the 36 hours of rest in a 72 hour period. The Issue: Who is going to perform the crewman?s work while our crewman is resting per OPA 90 minimum rest requirements? Given the limited number of crew available and aboard vessels trading in domestic U.S. waters, who is left to pick up the load?www.marinelink.com MN 27MN November2013 Layout 18-31.indd 27MN November2013 Layout 18-31.indd 2710/28/2013 3:14:50 PM10/28/2013 3:14:50 PM