home   Picture of the Day     ship information   articles and features     news and views   publications   webcam 

Locations of visitors to this page







Back in 1994, during hard times, I took a job on a ship in the Arabian Gulf, and travelled to Damam airport. The Saudi government had a reputation for treating seafarers with a complete lack of respect, and sure enough this proved to be the case. I was instructed to stand to one side while the proper passengers were processed. Eventually the arrivals hall was completely  empty and so I was allowed to sit down to await a representative of the agent, without whom I would not be allowed step out side. After several hours he appeared and I was allowed to leave. Saudi rules are that seafarers passing through have to be out of the country in 12 hours, but that is another story!

But of course, Saudi are not alone in treating seafarers like some sort of third class citizens, or potential terrorists, and a correspondent with the Telegraph, the Nautilus magazine has confirmed that the Americans continue to treat seafarers in an inappropriate way, actually just as they have always done, despite the generally greater awareness of the need to generally respect other human beings. His experience was not dissimilar from mine. The ship's master who was the writer of the letter described being held in a line at Houston airport for two hours, including one hour during which the hall was completely empty except for the line of seafarers. Entry into Vietnam takes slightly less time.

This is just a few lines on one of a billion internet pages and in writing about this mistreatment we can't expect to in any way influence the American authorities, but surely it must be up to some-one to take it up, and to attempt to influence them about this and all the other abuses of seafarers human rights which are currently taking place, not in a third world dictatorship, but in what claims to be the greatest democracy in the world.


On 28th March the long awaited report of the Norwegian Commission of inquiry into the loss of the Bourbon Dolphin was published, and a summary of the accident and the findings can be found in the Features section of this website. During the investigation there were several days of witness testimony after which journalists picked out the bits which fitted in with their theories and wrote relating articles. Websites which encouraged responses from the general public picked up some wild ideas, even including an attack by a giant squid.

The report was announced at a press conference which can be watched in full on the Norwegian Ministry of Justice website. It generally fired broadsides in all directions and everybody involved came in for some criticism, but this is to be expected. There have been failing in virtually everybody's approaches to rig moves for the existence of the process, although things have gradually improved. Most shipmasters who were doing the job in the 1970s would say that they arrived on the location without having the faintest idea of what was likely to be involved, and if they were called into the operator's office it would be a job which was difficult, or maybe impossible. If rig move procedures existed they remain a secret between the rig mover and his employer.

Now that the recommendations are in the public domain, and are being addressed by the IMO, the Norwegian Maritime Directorate all the participants in that particular rig move and in the UK the Marine Safety Forum, it is to be hoped that some good will come out of it all. What none of us would like to see would be more exercises, the intent of which are solely to prove that it was "nothing to do with me", and as a result, unlikely to actually reduce the risk.

Realistically the ISM code does not require risk assessments to be carried out, but it does require seafarers to have the necessary skills to carry out the tasks for which they are employed. The ship-owners need to be realistic and to start to apply themselves to the what is implied by the code, rather than getting enough words in place to pass the next audit.


On 24th March the offshore support vessel Neftegaz 67 with a crew of 24 Ukranians and one Chinese sailor was in collision with a bulk carrier off Hong Kong. The ship sank apparently trapping 18 of the crew inside. Rescue efforts were concentrated on attempting to locate survivors within the hull, and by 29th three bodies had been recovered. The event was hardly noticed by the UK press.

This tragedy was not the result of the employment of the ship in  some exotic operation requiring special skills and complex plant, it was the result of the day to day activities of seafarers, making their way between two places carrying cargo, and going about their lawful business. It brings to our attention the fact that collision is still one of the main reasons for the loss of marine craft, and also the fact that many offshore support vessel have to be positively managed in order to give them sufficient buoyancy to survive collision. Of course this might not have been the case with the Neftegaz 67, but according to the local press the ship had been the subject of a number of flag state inspections.


Maersk have announced that they are to replace the Danish catering staff on their deep sea vessels with "cheaper" crew members, and that this is an economic necessity prompted by the need to compete with the services offered by other ship-owners of other nationalities. Of course, the British in their heyday mostly employed catering crews, and deck crews from India or the Far East, so this approach is not new, but those companies still employed very large crews, officer numbers alone probably equalling complete crews today. In fact we reported last year that the Emma Maersk was intended to operate with a crew of 13. Were some of these the Chief Steward and the catering crew?

Where will it all end. There must come a time when ship-owners cease to cut costs because in the end will they be able to operate safely at all. Years ago the coal mine at Hunterston closed down because it was cheaper to ship the coal from Australia. Was that right? The transport component of most of what is transported across the oceans of the world must already be very small, so it may be time for us as the purchasers of this stuff to pay just a little more, and hence to allow seafarers a little quality of life, which honestly they cannot be said to have now.

Victor Gibson



December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
 April 2009
 March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
Feb 2008
Jan 2008
Dec 2007
Nov 2007
Oct 2007
 June 2007
 May 2007
 April 2007
 March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
June 2005
April 2005
Feb 2005
Jan 2005
Nov 2004
Oct 2004
Sept 2004
August 2004

July 2004

May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002 
July/Aug 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
July 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000