Analysis of the Maritime Inspection
Regimes – Are ships over-inspected?

Abstract
The lack of trust in the maritime industry between all the industry organizations
and regulators has created an inspection industry which is heavily controlled by
oil majors in order to limit their liability. This report is an introductory part of a
PhD project called ” The Econometrics of Maritime Safety – Recommendations to
Enhance Safety at Sea” which is based on 183,000 port state control inspections2
and 11,700 casualties from various data sources. Its overall objective is to provide
recommendations to improve safety at sea. This part identifies all inspections that
are performed in the name of safety onboard vessels, their estimated costs and
frequencies and brings them in relation with insurance claim costs from P&I
Clubs. The probability of casualty is analyzed per frequency of inspection and
detention. The results reveal that certain ships are inspected frequently and that
over-inspection does not necessarily decrease the probability of having a casualty
but can rather increase it.

1 Econometric Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, NL-3000 DR, Rotterdam,
The Netherlands, email: s.knapp@vienna.at or franses@few.eur.nl 2 The authors would like to thank the following secretariats for their kind co-operations: Paris
MoU, Indian Ocean MoU, Viña del Mar Agreement on PSC, Caribbean MoU, Australian Maritime
Safety Authority, the United States Coast Guard, Lloyd’s Register Fairplay, Lloyd’s Maritime
Intelligence Unit, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), Right Ship and the
Greenaward Foundation.
2
1. The Complexity of the System
1.1. The Players of the Regime
Figure 1 provides an overview of the players of the safety regime which at first side seems
complex. The legal framework is created by three major international organizations
namely, the UN, ILO, and the IMO3 and country specific legislation4. The classification
societies provide the technical expertise during ship building and technical maintenance
of the vessel. In addition, classification societies can be authorized to perform statutory
responsibilities on behalf of the flag states that have the ultimate responsibility to enforce
their legal base which can be a combination of the international conventions of which the
flag state is signatory or its own legal base while the ship owner has the ultimate
responsibility to comply with the combined legal bases.
Figure 1: Players of the Safety Regime in General
The line between the actual ship owner, operator or technical manager of the vessel is not
completely clear in shipping and therefore complicates enforcement of the legal
instruments. In an effort to gain some insight into the relationships, data from Lloyd’s
Register Fairplay was merged with the total dataset as explained previously. The reason
of the existence of the port state control regime derives from the fact that a certain
percentage of ship owners and flag states use the legal “loophole” created by the
international legal framework and try to save costs by operating below the minimum
safety standards. This can cause accidents and damage to the environment, the cargo and
human lives. According to the OECD the percentage of sub-standard ships in the world
commercial fleet is estimated to be between 10-15%5. The industry solution to this
problem is represented by the vetting inspections which are performed on oil tankers,
chemical tankers and bulk carriers. The vetting inspections create a strong commercial
incentive for the ship owner to comply to the vetting inspection requirements since the
outcome of these inspections will determine if the ship gets cargo or not.

3 UN: United Nations, IMO: Intern. Maritime Organization, ILO: Intern. Labor Organization 4 This could be for instance the “acquis communautaire” for the EU or OPA 90 for the US or any other country
specific legislation
5 Peijs, K. (2003). Ménage a trois. Speech at Mare Forum (November 2003: Amsterdam)
Delegation
Ultimate
Responsibility
Ultimate responsibility
Flag
States
Charterer
Cargo
Owner
Ship
Operator
Ship
Manager
Port
State Control
Ship
Yards
Ship
Owner
Classification
Societies
Insurance Banks
Companies
Legal
Framework
Vetting
Inspections
3
The various types of inspections that are performed on ships including port state control
inspections will be explained in detail later on.
Port State control can be seen as a last resource of safety to eliminate substandard ships
from the seas. Worldwide, there are currently ten safety regimes in place to cover most of
the coastal states. Those regimes are as follows:
1. Europe and North Atlantic (Paris MoU)
2. Asia and the Pacific (Tokyo MoU)
3. Latin America (Acuerdo de Viña del Mar)
4. Caribbean (Caribbean MoU)
5. West and Central Africa (Abuja MoU)
6. Black Sea (Black Sea MoU)
7. Mediterranean (Mediterranean MoU)
8. Indian Ocean (Indian Ocean MoU)
9. Arab States of the Gulf (Riyadh MoU)
10. US (US Coast Guard)
1.2. Overview of Inspections in the Name of Safety
The following section will provide a short overview of the different kind of inspections and
surveys that are carried out on ships besides port state control inspections. An overview
of the total exposure to inspections is given in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Summary of Total Inspection and Audit Exposure6
Source: compiled by author from various legal sources and inspections
The inspections originate from various sources and are as follows:
• Port state control inspections and flag state control inspections

6 Note: CAS = Condition Assessment Scheme, ESP = Enhanced Survey Program, CAP = Condition
Assessment Program
4
• ISM and ISPS audits due to statutory requirements and which are still sometimes
performed by the flag states but most of the time also delegated to recognized
classification societies
• Classification surveys on behalf of flag states and to remain in class7
• Insurance companies such as P&I Clubs for insurance coverage purposes
• Industry inspections such as vetting inspections performed on oil tankers, chemical
tankers, gas carriers and bulk carriers on behalf of oil majors or other cargo owners or
on behalf of the ship owner. (CDI, OCIMF/SIRE, Rightship, Oil Majors)
Commercial incentives: These inspections are on request of the ship owner in order to
obtain a quality certificate which will then help in obtaining commercial incentives
1.3. Mandatory Inspections/Surveys/Audits
Port state control and flag state inspections cover the statutory requirements.
Classification societies perform most of the surveys based on the statutory requirements
and by authorization of a flag state. The IMO has tried to synchronize the various types of
inspections and in essence, four types of mandatory inspections can be identified and are
shown in the graph which covers the inspection areas listed next to the inspection types.
Depending on the type of survey (e.g. initial, annual, renewal, etc.) the content and
intensity of the inspection areas is changed accordingly. An initial survey is a complete
inspection before the vessel comes into service. In addition to the mandatory inspection
types and areas, two mandatory survey programs are identified and are also normally
provided by the classification societies. The first one is CAS (Condition Assessment
Scheme) based on Marpol and the second is the ESP (Enhanced Survey Program) based
on SOLAS.
The Condition Assessment Scheme originated from an amendment to Annex I of Marpol
Annex I (Regulation 13G) and can be applied to single hull tankers above 15 years of age.
It is intended to complement the requirements of the Enhanced Survey Program of
SOLAS which applies to bulk carriers and oil tankers. Both require a different scope of
survey depending on the age of the vessel including thickness measurements and rate the
coating conditions of the tanks as GOOD, FAIR and POOR which is sometimes important
information for vetting inspections.
In order to facilitate the various mandatory inspections/survey types shown in Figure 2
and which need to be carried out, the IMO established the “Harmonized System of
Survey’s and Certification” which can be seen in summarized version in Table 18 where
the following abbreviations are used9:
• A – Annual: general inspection of the items relating to the certificate to ensure that
they have been maintained and remain satisfactory for the service for which the ship
is intended.
• P – Periodical or I – Intermediate: inspection of the items related to the certificate in
order to ensure that they are in satisfactory conditions and fit for the service for which
the ship is intended. It is a more detailed inspection compared to the annual
inspection and is called periodical with reference to the radio equipment and
intermediate for all other types of surveys.
• R – Renewal: same as periodical but more detailed and leads to the issue of a new
certificate and normally involves dry docking.

7 a ship does not necessary have to be in “class” in order to trade but it is highly recommended.
8 Extract from IMO Resolution A 746 (18), page 246 and amendment
9 Based on IMO Resolution A.746 (18), page 151 and amendment
5
Table 1: Summary of Harmonized System of Survey and Certification
Years 1 2 3 4 5
Months 9 12 15 21 24 27 33 36 39 45 48 51 57 60
Certificates/Inspection Areas
Passenger Ship Safety Cert. R R R R R
CS Safety Equipment Cert. A A or P P or A A R
CS Safety Radio Certificate. P P P P R
SC Safety Construction Cert. A A or I I or A A R
CF Gas (IGC/GC) A A or I I or A A R
CF Chemical (IBC/BCH) A A or I I or A A R
Load Line Certificate A A A A R
IOPP (Marpol Annex I) A A or I I or A A R
IPP (Marpol Annex II) A A or I I or A A R
Based on IMO Resolution A 746 (18)
Abbreviations: CS = Cargo Ship, CF = Certificate of Fitness, IOPP = Intern. Oil Prevention Pollution
Certificate, IPP = Intern. Pollution Prevention Certificate for Carriage of Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk
The table shows the time periods and within which time periods the different types of
surveys can be conducted. It allows a harmonized approach between the various SOLAS
and Marpol requirements. Passenger vessels have to follow stricter survey schemes
(renewal surveys) than other ship types and a renewal survey has to be carried out each
year versus every five years. Intermediate surveys come into the picture between the 2nd
and 3rd year in order to decrease the inspection time required for a full renewal survey.
Besides the items listed above, two types of audits are identified in Figure 2 – the ISM
(International Safety Management) audit and the ISPS (International Ship and Port
Security) audit which are both SOLAS requirements. This certification is split into a
shipboard part and a company part where the shipboard part has to be completed every
five years with one intermediate audit half way). Some flag administrations have not yet
authorized classification societies to perform these audits but many flag states have done
so and this area is therefore also widely covered by classification societies.
1.4. Non Mandatory Inspections
Cargo owners have considerable power through their vetting inspections for certain ship
types (oil tankers, chemical tankers, gas carriers and dry bulk carriers). Sometimes these
inspections originate from the cargo owner or sometimes the ship owner will ask for the
inspection in order to show a certain quality level for a potential cargo owner. Going
through an inspection does not necessarily mean the ship is accepted for cargo. It becomes
clear from the graph that the targeted ship types are chemical tankers, oil tankers, gas
carriers and bulk carriers for the industry inspections while inspections based on
statutory requirements are valid for all ship types. The various inspection systems do
reference each other but there is no cross-recognition. The following paragraphs will
describe the systems further.
CDI (Chemical Industry Institute): CDI inspections originate from the ship owner and
are therefore owned and paid by the ship owner. The owner requests a CDI inspection
and the inspector is appointed to the vessel. Inspections are based on a standardized
questionnaire covering all areas of shipboard operations and are split up into “statutory
requirements” (based on the international conventions), “required” (as per industry Code
of Practice) and “desired” (required by CDI participants or users of the reports)
requirements. An inspection normally takes around 8-10 hours where particular
6
emphasis is placed on cargo operations and the competence of crew. CDI inspections are
primarily performed on chemical tankers. After the inspection, the report is uploaded to
the CDI system and the ship owner can provide comments to the inspection results. After
that, the ship owner can decide if the report goes alive or not and becomes visible for the
CDI users.
SIRE (Ship Inspection Report Program) and inspection from Oil Majors: Sire
inspections are performed by OCIMF (Oil Companies International Marine Forum) and
originate from cargo owners. The inspectors are appointed by OCIMF and the information
is however owned by the cargo owner but partly made available to other OCIMF members
who can obtain parts of the inspection results for a fee. The inspections also cover more or
less the same areas as CDI with a heavy influence on cargo operations and can take 8 to
10 hours. Ship Owners have some time to comment to the issued report before it becomes
available online. These types of vetting inspections are primarily for oil tankers. While
the standardized questionnaire serves as a basis, some oil majors have additional
requirements and will add these requirements during an inspection which can be
confusing for the ship owners and their crew since no split between statutory
requirements and other requirements is made. In addition, oil majors normally perform
their own inspections where the basic requirements are according to the SIRE inspections
but additional requirements per oil major are added to the inspection and are not
published in the SIRE report.
Rightship: Rightship is a ranking system which combines information obtained through
vetting inspections, port state control, casualties, ship particular information and ship
owner information. It ranks vessels according to a rating score (1 to 5 stars where 5 stars
represents a very good vessel with low risk). It is based on a joint venture between BHP
Billiton Freight Trading and Logistics and Rio Tinto Shipping. The inspections cover
tankers and bulk carriers but are primarily for dry bulk carriers. A Rightship Inspection
can take from 8 to 48 hours and covers all aspects of shipboard operations in addition to
ship structure and cargo handling equipment including hatch covers which is important
for dry bulk carriers. Inspectors perform ballast water tank inspections and evaluate the
conditions of the cargo holds.
Greenaward: The last kind of inspection that is performed on vessels (oil tankers)
originates from the Greenaward Foundation. These inspections are paid by the ship
owner. An initial inspection will take approx. 9 hours and cover all aspects of shipboard
operations. In addition to the shipboard audit, an office audit (2 days) is performed to
evaluate the shore based management systems and support to the vessels. After
successful completion, the ship receives a certificate (Greenaward) and the ship owner
can obtain discounts on harbor dues from ports participating in the program. Once the
vessel is “Greenaward Certified”, it needs to undergo annual or intermediate surveys to
remain certified. The Greenaward Foundation is a non-profit foundation. Over the years,
the Greenaward Certificate is not yet officially recognized by port state control regimes.
The approach is more complete and includes shore-side and ship-side elements of the
operations.
In addition to the statutory requirement for CAS and the ESP, some oil majors ask a ship
owner to participate in CAP (Condition Assessment Program) for either hull or
machinery. Those programs are offered by classification societies and are purely
voluntary and provide the ship owner with a rating (CAP 1, 2 or 3 where CAP 1 represent
the best rating) which is important for some oil majors. There is an overlapping of CAP
with CAS where the main difference is that CAS is a statutory requirement and its end
7
users are the flag states while CAP is a voluntary program required by oil majors who
decides on the minimum of the CAP rating.
1.5. Comparison of Inspection Areas
The next section will provide a comparison between the various inspections (excluding
ISPS) that are performed on the vessels and explained previously. It will only concentrate
on inspections performed on ships and only highlight the main areas and items that are
inspected in comparison with each other. The inspection matrix can be seen in Table 2 for
easier reference and was compiled based on the experience the author collected by
observing some inspections and the check-lists of some of the inspectors. The legend and
color coding for the table is provided here below:
x = part of inspection round
r = referenced during inspection
i = actual physical inspection/testing/interviews
s = depends on situation, for class on the type of survey (annual, intermediate, renewal)
The table is split into the main areas of inspection such as an administrative part, living
and working conditions onboard the ship, the safety management system, areas related to
safety and fire appliances, navigation and communication, ship and cargo operations
including pollution prevention, machinery related areas and stability and structural
related areas. The source of inspection is listed when applicable which can be a
combination of the international conventions plus flag state requirements and additional
industry requirements besides the statutory requirements. Next, the parties performing
the inspections are identified and their coverage is indicated. The last column provides
guidance on the crew that is involved in the inspections. For some vetting inspections and
class surveys, the ship superintendent will normally also be onboard the vessel to Help
the crew.
The inspection normally starts with a short briefing of the master and review of the ship’s
certificates and crew certificates. This is followed by a deck round starting from the top
(bridge) down to the main deck areas with stops at the life boats, safety lockers, fire
fighting equipment. The bridge will also cover more detailed questions about passage
planning, chart corrections and the checking of the navigational equipment, lights and
radio equipment. Deck rounds can entail stops at the paint locker, the CO2 room (if
applicable), storage location for Acetylene and Oxygen Cylinders, the pump room (if
applicable), the emergency generator, checking of fire hoses and lifebuoys, mooring
arrangements and winches as well as visits to the forepeak. The last section of the
inspection normally covers the cargo control room and the engine room with the testing of
the emergency fire pump and emergency steering gear and a general round around the
engine room including the areas used for welding. If ballast water tank inspections or
inspections of the cargo holds are performed, the inspector will announce this in the
beginning of the inspection so that it can be prepared accordingly. It is not easy to access
ballast water tanks or cargo holds during normal cargo operations.
Table 2: Inspection Matrix – Main Areas of Inspection in Comparison
Note: Compiled by author Party performing the inspection/survey/audit
Inspection Matrix – Main Areas of Inspection Source of Inspection Port & Flag State or Class Industry
International
Conventions (statutory)
Flag State
Add. Industry
Requirements
Port State (more
detailed insp.)
Flag State
Class Surveys
ISM (emphasis on the
system)
Insurance (P&I Clubs)
CDI/OCIMF
Rightship
Greenaward (Shipside
Part)
Ship Crew Involved
Average Time
onboard (hrs.) 6-8 8 24-48 8 8 8-10 8-48 9
Registration & Administration (Certificates)
Statutory Certificates various x r r r r r r r
Crew Certificates (plus Endorsements) SOLAS/STCW x r r r r r r r
Crew Nationality x r
Medicals x r r r r r r r
Other Certificates for Equipment Testing various x r r r r r r r
Previous Port State Control/Flag State Reports x r r r r r r
Vetting Inspection Reports x r r
Master, Chief
Officer
Living and Working Conditions
Accommodation ILO x x x x x x x
Food (Inspection of Freezers and Galley) ILO x x x x x x x
Living Conditions/Public Spaces ILO x x x x x x x
Rest Periods and Watch Keeping Hours STCW x r r r r r x r
Safety Signs, Protection Equipment SOLAS x x x x x x x x
Gas Detection and Calibration SOLAS/ISM x x i x x x x x
Decontamination showers and eyewash on deck SOLAS/ISM x x i x x x x x
Mooring Arrangements Safe & Maintained SOLAS/ISM x x x x x x x x x
Hospital and Medical Attention x x x x x x x x x
Chief Officer,
Third Officer,
Cook
Note: Compiled by author Party performing the inspection/survey/audit
Inspection Matrix – Main Areas of Inspection Source of Inspection Port & Flag State or Class Industry
International
Conventions (statutory)
Flag State
Add. Industry
Requirements
Port State (more
detailed insp.)
Flag State
Class Surveys
ISM (emphasis on the
system)
Insurance (P&I Clubs)
CDI/OCIMF
Rightship
Greenaward (Shipside
Part)
Ship Crew Involved
Management ISM
Safety Management System/Master’s Authority SOLAS/ISM x r r i r r r i
Safety & Environmental Policy SOLAS/ISM x r r i r r r i
DoC Company and Designated Person Ashore SOLAS/ISM x r r i r x r i
Company Internal Audits SOLAS/ISM x r r i r x r i
Records of Incidents/Near Misses/Accidents SOLAS/ISM x r r i x x r i
Maintenance Routines, Non-conformities SOLAS/ISM x r r i r x r i
Operational Safety – Safety Procedures (Hot Work,
Entry into enclosed spaces) SOLAS/ISM x r r i r r r i
Safety, Fire and Abandon Ship Drills SOLAS/ISM x i(s) i(s) r r x r i
Onboard Communication satisfactory x x x x x x x
Crew Familiarization ISM x x i r x i x
Company Drug and Alcohol Policy and Testing x r x r x
Crew Working Experience x x i x
Manning and Training Policy x r x i x
Security Related Items SOLAS/ISPS x x x x x
Master, Chief
Officer, Third
Officer
Safety and Fire Appliances
SOLAS Training Manuals SOLAS x x x x x x x x x
Muster Lists and Emergency Instructions SOLAS x x x i x x x x x
Lifesaving Appliances (Lifejackets, Immersion Suits,
etc) SOLAS x i i i x i i x x
Lifeboat, Life rafts, Equipment and Launching SOLAS x i i i x i i x x
Chief Officer,
Third Officer
Note: Compiled by author Party performing the inspection/survey/audit
Inspection Matrix – Main Areas of Inspection Source of Inspection Port & Flag State or Class Industry
International
Conventions (statutory)
Flag State
Add. Industry
Requirements
Port State (more
detailed insp.)
Flag State
Class Surveys
ISM (emphasis on the
system)
Insurance (P&I Clubs)
CDI/OCIMF
Rightship
Greenaward (Shipside
Part)
Ship Crew Involved
Rescue Boat and equipment SOLAS x x x i x x x x x
Pilot Ladder, Embarkation Ladders for Lifeboats SOLAS x i i i x i i x x
Oxygen & Acetylene Storage, CO2 room SOLAS x i i i x i i x x
Fire Control Plan SOLAS x r r i x r r r r
Fire Fighting Equipment and Detection SOLAS x i i i x i i x x
Fireman’s outfit, breathing apparatus, air bottles,
EEBD SOLAS x x x i x x x x x
Fire/Foam Hydrants SOLAS x x x i x x x x x
Industry Guidelines/Publications x x x i x
Navigation and Communication
Company Navigation Procedures STCW x x x x x x x x x
Bridge Standing Orders SOLAS x x x x x x x x x
Passage Planning STCW x x x x x x x x x
Chart Corrections SOLAS x x x x x x x x x
Nautical Publications up to date various x x x x x x x x x x
Navigational Equipment Working (GPS, Speed Log,
Radar, Echo Sounder, Compass, Navtex etc.) SOLAS x x x i x x x x x
Dead man Alarm (when applicable) x x x x x x x x x
Guidelines for the prevention of fatigue x r
Crew knows how to operate equipment STCW x x x x x x x x x
VDR/AIS SOLAS x x x i x x x x
Compass Error Log STCW x x x x x x x x
Chief Officer,
Second
Officer
Note: Compiled by author Party performing the inspection/survey/audit
Inspection Matrix – Main Areas of Inspection Source of Inspection Port & Flag State or Class Industry
International
Conventions (statutory)
Flag State
Add. Industry
Requirements
Port State (more
detailed insp.)
Flag State
Class Surveys
ISM (emphasis on the
system)
Insurance (P&I Clubs)
CDI/OCIMF
Rightship
Greenaward (Shipside
Part)
Ship Crew Involved
Compass Deviation Card SOLAS x x x x x x x x
Navigation Lights COLREG x x x i x i x x
GMDSS Operations and Testing SOLAS/STCW x x x i x x x x
EPIRB and SART SOLAS x x x i x x x x
Ship and Cargo Operations including Pollution Prevention
Loading and Stability Manuals IBC/BCH x r r r x r r x x
Cargo loading limitations IBC/BCH x r r r x r r x x
Damage/survival stability guidelines IBC/BCH x r r r x r r x x
Procedures and Arrangement Manual MARPOL x r r r x r r x x
High level alarms operative IBC x x x i x x x x x
Bilge Alarms SOLAS x i x i x i i x i
Portable or fixed gas detection systems SOLAS x x x i x x x x x
Inert gas system (for oil tankers) or other systems to
blanket cargo (e.g. nitrogen) x x x x x x x x
15 ppm Alarm MARPOL x i i i x i i x i
Oil-Mist Detector SOLAS x i i i x i i i i
SOPEP, SMPEP MARPOL x r r r x r r x x
Cargo Record Book, Oil Record Book, Garbage RB MARPOL x r r r x r r x x
Tank cleaning and washing including COW MARPOL x r r x x x x x
Industry Guidelines/Publications x x x x x
Cargo Operations in General including Pump Room various x x x x i x x
Chief Officer,
Chief
Engineer
Cargo Transfer Operations various x x x x i x x
Note: Compiled by author Party performing the inspection/survey/audit
Inspection Matrix – Main Areas of Inspection Source of Inspection Port & Flag State or Class Industry
International
Conventions (statutory)
Flag State
Add. Industry
Requirements
Port State (more
detailed insp.)
Flag State
Class Surveys
ISM (emphasis on the
system)
Insurance (P&I Clubs)
CDI/OCIMF
Rightship
Greenaward (Shipside
Part)
Ship Crew Involved
Fuel Testing, sulphur content measurement x r
Anti-fouling system for hull coating (TBT free) MARPOL x r r r
Additional Oil Pollution Prevention Measures x r r
Machinery Related Areas including Engine Room
Engine Room Standing Orders SOLAS/ISM x x x x x x x x x
Planned Maintenance System SOLAS x r r i x r i x x
Emergency Steering Gear SOLAS x i i i i i i i
Emergency Fire Pump SOLAS x i i i i i i i
Emergency Generator SOLAS x i i i i i i i
Emergency Batteries SOLAS x x x x x x x x
Testing of Black Out and Reverse Polarity i(s) i i(s) i(s) x
Overall Cleanliness and Appearance of ER x x x x x x x x
Chief
Engineer,
First or
Second
Engineer
Stability & Structure
Enhanced Survey Program, Thickness
Measurements SOLAS x r r i(s) r r r r r
CAS (Condition Assessment Scheme) MARPOL x r r i(s) r r r r r
Inspections of Ballast Tanks, Cargo Tanks, Void
Spaces, Cofferdams for Condition of
Coating/Corrosion SOLAS/MARPOL x r i(s) r r x i r
Rating System for Condition of Coating/Corrosion as per ESP/CAS x r r i(s) r r r i r
Conditions of Hull and Superstructure (e.g Hatch
covers) Good/Fair/Poor x x x i(s) x i(s) x i i
Class Status Report/Outstanding Class Conditions
and Memoranda x r r r r r r r
Master, Chief
Officer, Chief
Engineer
13
The inspection is normally finished up with a round of the galley storage areas for food (dry
store, freezers, etc.) and the crew mess and day room.
One can see from the table, that certificates are referenced by everybody and that the main
areas of inspections are more or less covered by all types of inspections. Living and Working
Conditions of the crew are mainly covered by the inspection rounds and the actual living
space of the crew (their cabins and other facilities) is hardly inspected
The industry inspections such as CDI/OCIMF, Rightship and Greenaward pay more
attention to ship and cargo operations and spend considerably more time with crew
members to interview them on operational issues. These items are primarily referenced
during port and flag state inspections. Drills might be performed by some safety regimes
such as the USCG or flag states but are not performed frequently by other inspectors and
the inspection of the lifeboat primarily emphasizes on the overall condition of the lifeboat,
its launching devices and embarkation procedures as well as the lifeboat equipment. The
inspection of safety and fire appliances is also covered by all types of inspections. For some
items, the inspection might go into more details and entail the actual testing of the
equipment which is merely performed during class surveys while other will only refer to
expiry dates of the last survey/inspection that was performed shore side (e.g. for life rafts).
Items related to navigation and communication is also covered by all inspection types
including chart corrections, passage planning, nautical publications and the overall
impression of the officer on watch with reference to the handling of the equipment (radar,
echo sounder, radio equipment, etc.)
Difficult to inspect is the safety management system since it draws from all areas. All
inspections do cover some ISM related questions and the actual validity of the presented
paperwork only becomes evident after a general deck round and interview with crew
members. It might be that the paperwork related to ISM is in compliance but not
implemented onboard. Inspection systems such as the vetting inspections do emphasize
more on this aspect where Greenaward also performs company audits shore-side.
Authorized classification societies or flag states perform separate audits to ensure that the
safety management system is implemented in practice but inspections due to the time
constraint in conducting surveys is normally only looking at the surface.
As mentioned earlier, ballast water tank and cargo holds inspections are difficult to perform
and are primarily done by classification societies. Rightship pays more attention to actual
physical inspections while port states will only proceed either required by their policies (e.g.
expanded inspections in the EU) or when perceived necessary. The various programs (ESP,
CAS or CAP) for the conditions of coatings in the ballast tanks and cargo tanks (when
applicable) are normally only referenced and physical inspections thereof are kept to a
minimum. The table gives a good indication of some of the overlapping of the inspections
that are performed on ships from port states, flag states, vetting inspections and other
industry inspections. The inspections performed by classification societies on behalf of the
flag state to a certain extent have a different scope since they are the basis to extend or
renew the validity of a certificate and are therefore statutory. The flag state inspections
performed beside the surveys from classification societies primarily serve as a means to
check the performance of classification societies as a recognized organization to conduct
these surveys on behalf of the flag state.
The system generates a substantial amount of inspections performed on vessels with areas
that are inspected and re-inspected frequently. In the case of port state control and based on
14
the total dataset, one can see the total inspection and detention frequency in Figure 3 which
is based on an average of four years10 since not all regimes provided data for the whole time
frame. Based on the 183,819 port state control inspections and 26,020 aggregated ships, this
aggregates to 7 inspections within four years or approx. 1.7 inspections per year per ship.
Figure 3: Inspection and Detention Frequency of Vessels (1999 to 2004)
Inspection Frequency (1999 to 2004)
2 to 5 times
28%
6 to 10
times
33%
more than
20 times
1%
once
15%
16 to 20
times
5%
11 to 15
times
18%
Detention Frequency (1999 to 2004)
4 and
more, 6%
once
66%
3 times
7%
twice
21%
Source: Knapp (2006)
2. Summary of Costs of Inspections and Insurance Claims
Table 3 and Table 4 give an overview of the estimated costs of port state control inspections
and other inspections that are performed onboard ships. The port state control inspections
costs are divided into inspection with zero deficiencies and inspections with deficiencies who
might take more amount of time onboard the ships. In addition, a 20% administrative
charge11 is added to the costs. The surveyor costs change from country to country and this
change is not taken into consideration since data from 53 countries are in the total port
state control inspection dataset. In reality, the presented figures might therefore be
different but for the purpose of this study, the figures should merely give an overall
indication on the costs associated with port state control.
Table 3: Total Estimated Port State Control Inspection Costs (USD)
# of Inspections # Hours/Insp. Rate Total 4 years Per Year Per Insp.
zero def. 98,895 395,580 4 126 50,038,229 12,509,557 506
with def. 84,924 509,544 6 126 64,453,914 16,113,479 759
Total 183,819 905,124 114,492,143 28,623,036 623
+20% Admin 137,390,572 34,347,643 747
Note: 1 hour surveyor = 72 British Pounds12, 1 GBP = 0.5692 USD, Administrative Costs = +20%,
compiled by author
The estimated inspection costs of a port state control inspection is USD 747 per inspection
or a total of USD 34,3 million for all types of inspection. Inspections associated with zero
deficiencies and without administrative costs are estimated to be at USD 12,5 million per
year or USD 50 million for the total four year period. Looking at the total estimated costs

10 The total amount of years for each regime was converted into month of inspections and then
converted into total amount of years (291 total months/12 = 24.25 years/6 regimes = 4 years) 11 as per information obtained from the Maritime and Coast Guard Agency, UK
12 as per information obtaine from the Maritime and Coast Guard Agency, UK
15
per year per vessel and including shore based costs for ship owners and operators, the result
can be seen in Table 4
Table 4: Summary of Inspection Frequency, Allocated Time and Costs (USD/year)
in USD
Estim.
Frequency Time (hrs)
Estim.
Costs
Estim.
Costs
Estim.
Total
Cost
Inspection Type yearly*)
Allocated
Onboard
Shore
Side/Insp
.
Ship
Side/Insp.
Per
Year
Port State Control 2 5 747 288 2,070
Flag State Control 1 8 747 441 1,188
Class Annual Survey 1 10 10,362 517 10,879
ISM Audit 0.5 9 2,682 487 1,584
Insurance (P&I Club) 0.5 8 3,048 441 1,744
Industry Inspections: Tankers 6 10 17,663 566 29,702
Industry Inspections: Bulk 1 10 6,250 566 6,816
Industry Inspections: Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total Tankers 11 50 35,248 2,739 47,166
Total Dry Bulk 6 50 23,835 2,739 24,280
Total Other Ship Types 5 40 17,585 2,173 17,464
Note: compiled by author, *) the ISM Audits and P&I Club Inspections are not performed yearly;
For Industry Inspections, administrative portion of 20% are added which might be higher in
reality due to substantial amount of preparation work
The data is a summary from several sources from the industry such as classification
societies and ship owners of which the companies would like to remain anonymous. The
table is split up into three groups. The estimated total frequency of inspection for tankers
(oil and chemical tankers) is estimated to be at 11 inspections per year which can of course
vary per ship type and age of the vessel. As the age increases (above 10 or 15 years), the
frequency of industry inspections can increase. For dry bulk carriers, the inspection
frequency is estimated to be 6 inspections and all other ship types, it is estimated to be at 5
inspections.
Shore based costs include the costs for the inspections itself including travel expenses as
well as an administrative portion of preparing the inspections and to comment on the
inspection reports which can take considerable amount of time on the ship operator’s or
owner’s side. Total costs per year per vessel associated with inspections vary from USD
47,000 for tankers to USD 17,500 for other ship types which are not part of the industry
vetting inspection system. These costs represent total costs where the ship owner’s portion
would be the portion without port state control and the flag state inspections.
It is difficult to bring these costs in relation to the costs that are associated with casualties.
One attempt was made to gather insurance claim data but only two sources from the
industry could be obtained of P&I Clubs13 who were willing to provide claim figures for the
years 2000 to 2004 per ship type and claim category. An average claim figure per ship was
calculated and is presented in Table 5.
In reality, the figures are higher than presented in the table due to the fact that the claim
figures are based on actual claims above the deductible. The deductible can vary per ship

13 The P&I Clubs wish to remain anonymous.
16
type, size or ownership of the vessel. In addition, it varies considerably between hull and
machinery (H&M) and other P&I club claims14. The figures presented in the table can
therefore only be seen as a very rough idea of the magnitude of casualty claims per ship
type. It is difficult to compare the costs of inspections with the insurance claim costs but an
overall comparison per ship type is given in Table 6. The result indicate that the total
inspection costs per ship of USD 24,768 seems to be reasonable in relation to the average
insurance claim costs of USD 97,766 which in reality might be an even higher figure.
Table 5: Average P&I Club Claim Figures per Vessel and Year (2000 to 2004)
Average Claim in
USD (2000 to 2004)
Cargo/GA
Collision
Contact
Personnel
Pollution
Other
H&M
Average ST
GG & Container 9,794 36,071 18,084 14,396 46,796 16,303 151,181 41,804
Dry Bulk 14,767 58,311 9,955 11,495 51,078 73,207 182,399 57,316
Tanker 42,936 88,277 21,079 18,216 272,016 44,596 609,252 156,624
Passenger 1,885 56,142 9,209 15,310 18,616 9,015 883,549 141,961
Other 9,231 18,801 478 6,446 6,886 38,357 557,692 91,127
Average/vessel 15,722 51,521 11,761 13,172 79,078 36,296 476,815 97,766
Note: compiled by author, GA = general average15, H&M = Hull and Machinery
Table 6: Average Inspection Costs versus Insurance Claims in USD (2000 to 2004)
In USD per vessel
Inspection
Costs
Insurance
Claims
GG & Container 17,464 41,804
Dry Bulk 24,280 57,316
Tanker 47,166 156,624
Passenger 17,464 141,961
Other 17,464 91,127
Average per Vessel/year 24,768 97,766
Compiled by author
Figure 4 shows the split up of the inspection costs and insurance claims per ship type in
order to see the relation between the two categories. One can easily see that the percentages
are not in line for passenger vessels where the insurance claims are substantially higher
than the inspection costs. For tankers on the other hand, the higher inspection costs seem
to be in line with the insurance claims due to the high costs that are for instance involved if
pollution is involved in a casualty. It is difficult to conclude if the inspection costs are in
relation to the insurance claims and if the relative high frequency of inspections on oil and
chemical tankers is justified since the costs of preventing accidents due to inspection are not
known. In addition, the insurance claims costs are in reality higher than shown here and
only based on two P&I Clubs. For the regression analysis on casualties and the effect of port

14 As per industry sources, the deductible for Hull and Machinery can be between USD 50,000 to
250,000 and for P& I Clubs between USD 5,000 – 30,000 for personnel and USD 10,000 to 100,000
for all other claims.
15 legal principal of maritme law according to which all parties in a sea venture proportionally share
any losses resulting from a voluntary sacrifice of part of the ship or fleet to save the whole
in an emergency (definition from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_average)
17
state control in the probability of having a casualty, the insurance claim costs were not
taken into consideration but are based on the seriousness of a casualty instead.
Figure 4: Inspection Costs versus Insurance Claims in % to Total
14.1%
19.6%
38.1%
14.1% 14.1%
8.6%
11.7%
32.0%
29.0%
18.6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
GG & Container Dry Bulk Tanker Passenger Other
inspection costs insurance claims
Compiled by author
In order to get an impression about the difference in insurance claims of vessel that were
inspected with vessels that were not inspected, the following graphs should give an
impression to see the difference based on claim costs. The graphs were produced the
following way. The total casualty dataset was combined with the insurance claim costs
listed in Table 5 and then aggregated per IMO number in order to obtain an average claim
amount per ship since one ship can have more than one type of claim. The result was then
merged with the inspection dataset in order to identify if a ship has been inspected or not
inspected by port state control. The figures do not match the figures presented in Table 6
since they are averages across all ship types and based on the total casualty dataset and not
the claim information received from the P&I Clubs directly.
Figure 5 gives an overview of the total average claims of inspected vessels versus not
inspected vessels.
Figure 5: Average Claims of Inspected versus Non-Inspected Vessels
103,672
34,685
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
Not PSC Inspected PSC Inspected
Average Insurance Claims
Based on inspections from 1999 to 2004
18
One can easily see that not inspected vessel have higher average claim costs than inspected
vessels. The same applies for Figure 6 for the average claim costs per ship type based on the
casualty dataset but using the average claims that were calculated and shown in Table 5.
Figure 6: Average Claims of Inspected versus Non-Inspected Vessels per Ship Type 53,731 61,065 31,551 151,916 81,079 112,306 25,592 29,301 18,935 73,620 32,940 38,866
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
general cargo dry bulk container tanker passenger other ST
Average Insurance Claims
PSC Not Inspected PSC Inspected
Based on inspections from 1999 to 2004
One can see that the differences between inspected and not inspected vessels is greatest for
tankers and other ship types which are easily explained with the frequency of inspections
performed on oil tankers.
3. The Link between Inspections and Casualties.
The datasets used for this analysis comprises data on the world fleet received from Lloyd’s
Register Fairplay (43,817 vessels), a combined PSC inspection dataset from five regimes16 of
183,819 inspections (26,020 ships), casualty data from three different sources17 of approx.
11,701 cases (9,589 ships) and some industry vetting inspection data. The data was
combined using the ship’s IMO number as a link and the time frame is question is from
1999 to 2004 where some of the casualty data extends beyond this time frame.
Figure 7 gives on overview of the magnitude of improvement possibilities for targeting
vessels. In total, about 16% of all inspected vessels had zero deficiencies over the time
period in question and these ships might have been ships which should not have been
targeted (4,221 ships). On the other hand, looking at ships which have been inspected six
months prior to a casualty (2,321 ships) where 52.3% of these vessels had zero deficiencies
(1,215 ships) and the rest had deficiencies. This changes the 4,221 ships which should not
have been targeted into 3,006 vessels or approx. 501 ships per year.
It is further worth noticing that out of the 1,106 vessels (2,321 – 1,215) with deficiencies,
14.6% were detained (162 vessels) and had a casualty. This portion could be understood as

16 Paris MoU, Caribbean MoU, Viña del Mar Agreement on PSC, AMSA and the Indian Ocean MoU
17 IMO, Lloyd’s Register Fairplay and LMIU
19
ships that have been targeted correctly and identified as sub-standard vessels but for some
reason, detention was not sufficient to increase the safety standard of the vessel to prevent
a casualty. The remaining portion of the vessels which have been inspected and were
deficiencies were found are the vessels where the effect of inspections decreased the
probability of a casualty which is the partial effect of the regressions. In number of vessels,
this amounts to approx. 18,87418 vessels or 3,146 ships per year.
Figure 7: Improvement Areas for PSC eligible ships (1999-2004)
improve
targeting &
inspections
3.7%
improve
targeting
4.7%
improve
inspections
4.9%
group 3:
inspections
with effects
43.1%
group 2:
over
targeted
ships
6.9%
group 1:not
problematic
ships
36.4%
Total Ships: 43,817
group 4:
Note: Based on only PSC relevant ships and based on total time frame (1999-2004)
The figure is only based on ships that are relevant for port state control (excluding the
fishing fleet > 400gt) and is a summary of the total time frame. The graph shows several
groups out of which group 1 of about 36% of the vessels eligible for inspections are identified
not to have been problematic over the time period and have also not been targeted by the
regimes in question. About 7% of the vessels eligible for port state control have been
targeted over the time frame but did not have a casualty and also no deficiencies and
therefore represent a group of over-inspected vessels (group 2).
Group 3 of 43% of the vessels can be identified to belong to a group where inspections are
effective in decreasing the probability of casualty where this effect can be measured for very
serious casualties and estimated (depending on the basic ship risk profile) to be a 5%
decrease per inspection. This category can also represent further room for improvement but
shows that port state control is effective.
Group 4 is split into three portions. The first portion is 5.3% of PSC eligible vessels which
are the amount of ships that have been targeted correctly but since they had a casualty
within six month after the inspection, the enforcement could be improved. The second
portion shows 4.7% of ships which had a casualty but were not inspected and where
targeting could be improved. Finally, the last category shows a grey area. In this group,
ships had a casualty but regardless of the time frame. Therefore, inspections and possibly

18 21,880 total inspected ships with no casualty minus 3,006 ships with no deficiencies
20
targeting could be improved. Most improvement to decrease the probability of a casualty
can be achieved by concentrating on the categories in group 4 by shifting the emphasis from
group 2 to group 4.
4. The Probability of Casualty per Frequency of Inspection
This section will provide the probability of casualty for either inspection or detention.
Average probabilities are then calculated and presented per frequency of inspection or
detention.
4.1. The Selection of Port State Control Relevant Casualties
Considerate care was given on the selection of casualties for the analysis. From the casualty
dataset within the time period 1999 to 2004 of 9,851 cases, the following cases were
eliminated.
1. Cases due to extreme weather conditions such as hurricanes, typhoons, gales and
very heavy storms
2. Ships attacked by pirates or ships lost due to war
3. Ships involved in a collision with no identified fault19
4. Any other miscellaneous items not relevant to PSC such as drugs found, virus
outbreaks of passengers or accidents which happened in dry docks
5. Not PSC relevant ships types such as ferries, the fishing fleet, tugs or government
vessels. The fishing fleet cases were kept separate and a separate analysis was
performed based only on the fishing fleet above 400gt.
The remaining 6291 cases concern 6,005 ships when aggregated by IMO number and were
then reviewed and re-grouped into the three groups of seriousness as per IMO MSC
Circular 953 of December 2000:20
1. Very serious casualties: casualties to ships which involve total loss of the ship, loss
of life or severe pollution
2. Serious casualties are casualties to ships which do not qualify as “very serious
casualties” and which involve fire, explosion, collision, grounding, contact, heavy
weather damage, ice damage, hull cracking, or suspected hull defect, etc. resulting
in: immobilization of main engines, extensive accommodation damage, severe
structural damage, such as penetration of the hull under water, etc. rendering the
ship unfit to proceed, or pollution (regardless of quantity); and/or a breakdown
necessitation towage or shore Helpance.
3. Less serious casualties are casualties to ships which do not qualify as “very serious
casualties” or “serious casualties” and for the purpose of recording useful information
also include “marine incidents” which themselves include “hazardous incidents” and
“near misses”.
4.2. Model Description
This model will provide the estimated probability (P) of a ship having a casualty. The
dependent variable (y) in this case is “casualty” or “no casualty”. In a binary regression, a

19 The identification of “no fault” in this case was not straight forward and some cases still included
in the dataset might be ships with no fault and were not eliminated due to lack of exactness of data.
20 as per IMO MSC Circular 953, 14th December 2000
21
latent variable y* gets mapped onto a binominal variable y which can be 1 (casualty) or 0
(no casualty). When this latent variable exceeds a threshold, which is typically equal to 0, it
gets mapped onto 1, other wise onto 0. The latent variable itself can be expressed as a
standard linear regression model
y*i = xiβ + εi
where i denotes ship i. The xi contains independent variables such as age, size, flag,
classification society or owner, and β represents a column vector of unknown parameters
(the coefficients). The binary regression model can be derived as follows:
P (yi = 1|xi) = P (y*i > 0| xi) = P (xiβ + εi > 0|xi) = P (εi > – xiβ|xi) = P (εi ≤ xiβ|xi)
The last term is equal to the cumulative distribution function of εi evaluated in xiβ, or in
short:
P (yi = 1|xi) = F (xiβ)
This function F can take many forms and for this study two were considered, namely the
cumulative distribution function of the normal distribution (probit model) and the
cumulative distribution function of the logistic function (logit model). The general model can
therefore be written in the form of Equation 1 where the term xiβ changes according to the
model in question and is given in Equation 2. The variables are listed in Table 7 for further
reference.
Equation 1: Probability of Casualty
x β)
x β)
i
i
P (
(
i 1 e
e
+ =
Equation 2: Definition of term xiβ of Casualty Detailed Model
k k,i
n
k k k,i
n
k k k,i
n
k
k k,i i i
n
k i i
k k,i i i
n
k i
k k,i
n
k k k,i i i
n
k
k k,i i
n
k i i
β β β
β β β β β
β β β β
β β β β
x β β β β β β
Σ PSC Σ DETPS Σ CODE
LIFS DH Σ RS GR ln(TIME )
FSInd Σ OWN OwnInd LIOWN
Σ CL CLInd CLWdr Σ FS
ln(AGE ) ln(SIZE ) Σ ST STInd
20, 1 19,
1
1 18,
1
1
15, 16 17
1
1 13 14
10, 11 12
1
1 9
8,
1
1 5, 6 7
1
1
3, 4
1
1 i 0 1 2
18 19 20
15
10
5 8
3
=
−
=
−
=
−
=
−
=
−
=
−
=
−
=
+ + +
+ + + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
= + + + +
The model produces probabilities on an individual ship level (i). The rest of the notation is
as follows: ℓ represents the variable groups, nℓ is the total number of variables within each
group of ℓ and k is an index from 1 to nℓ. To estimate the coefficients, quasi-maximum
22
likelihood (QML)21 is used as method of estimation in order to give some allowance for a
possible misspecification of the assumed underlying distribution function. For the final
models, logit and probit models are compared to see if there are any significant differences
and logit models are used for the visualization part.
The variables in the models are then further explained in Table 7. Within block 1, changes
in any of the variables since the construction of the vessel and during the years of
inspection history are identified (e.g. the ship type was converted, flag, class or ownership
changed). This block also includes information on the number of legal instruments a certain
flag or country of residence of an owner has rectified.
Table 7: Variables Used in the Twin Regressions
Dependent Variable 1: Casualty:
This can be either per seriousness or by casualty first event 1/0

Independent Variables
Number of
Variable nℓ
Remark on
Variable
Expected
Sign
ℓ Block 1: Ship Particulars: included to account for target factors
Ln(Age) 1 Average age at Inspection 1 C
Ln(SIZE) 2 Gross Tonnage 1 C
ST 3 Ship Type at present 6 D
STInd 4 Ship Type Changed 1 D
CL 5 Classification Society at inspection 33 D
CLInd 6 Classification Society changed 1 D
CLWdr 7 Class Withdrawn 1 D
FS 8 Flag State at inspection 81 D
FSInd 9 Flag State Changed 1 D
OWN 10 Owner of vessel 6 D
OWNInd 11 Ownership changed 1 D
LIOWN 12 Legal Instruments Rectified (Owner) 1 C
LIFS 13 Legal Instruments Rectified (Flag) 1 C
DH 14 Double Hull 1 D
Block 2: Inspection History: variables of interest
RS 15 Rightship Inspected (5 Star Rating or indicator) 5 D neg
GR 16 Greenaward Certified 1 D neg
ln(TIME) 17 Time in between inspections (days) 1 C neg
PSC 18 Inspections Frequency per Regime (Fractions) 6 D neg
DETPS 19 Detention Frequency per Regime 6 D neg
CODE 20 Deficiency main codes (also multiplied by ST) 26 (156) C und
Total Variables*) 181(311)
*) in brackets indicates number of multiplicative dummy variables
C= Continuous, D= Dummy
Since the whole inspection and casualty history of a particular vessel is taken into
consideration, average percentage fractions over all records of one particular vessel
(aggregated by IMO number) are used in the regressions for the inspections and the
detentions while the deficiencies are aggregated and represent a total sum.

21 for further details on QML, refer to Greene H.W. (2000), Econometric Analysis, Fourth Edition,
page 823ff
23
The models are based on inspected ships where one vessel had a casualty and one did not.
From the vessels with casualty, corresponding twins were matched from the vessels without
casualty and a time frame (six month) was incorporated into the model. The variables used
for matching are the variables which are assumed not to have a direct impact on the
seriousness of a casualty and are listed in Table 8 in order of importance given the fact that
the difference of observations in the datasets is quiet large. In doing the match, the first
three variables are the most important ones followed by the country the ship was
constructed and the owner and then the remaining variables such as class, flag and hull
details for tankers. Ship type is found to be the most important variable for determining the
construction quality and operating environment of a ship.
Table 8: List of Variables used to Match Ships
1. Ship Type at the time of construction
2. Year Built (in 11 ranges)
3. Gross Tonnage (in 44 ranges)
4. Country of Owner at time of construction
5. Country where Ship was primarily built
6. Class at construction
7. Flag at construction
8. Double Hull
4.3. Model Assessment and Final Results
The model for very serious casualty was tested for presence of heteroscedasticity using the
LM test as described by Davidson and McKinnon (1993)22. Only the very serious casualty
models were tested since the author felt that it was more important to investigate
heteroscedasticity for the casualty models due to the sensitivity of the topic in question. The
null hypothesis (ho) assumes homoscedasticity and the alternative hypothesis assumes
heteroscedasticity in the following form where γ is unknown and z are a number of variables
which are assumed to be the cause of heteroscedasticity:
Variance = exp (2z’γ)
The test was performed separately for two variables, namely tonnage and age where
presence of heteroscedasticity was not found as can be seen in Table 9. Table 10 lists the
key statistics of the final models.
Table 9: Test Statistics for LM-Test
Type of Model Variable
Tested
LM-Statistic p-value
6m very serious Age 4.261 0.0389 – do not reject ho
Tonnage 4.061 0.0438 – do not reject ho
Note: 1% significance level used

22 Davidson and McKinnon (1993), Estimation and Inference in Econometrics, New York: Oxford
University Press, 1993, page 526ff
24
Table 10: Key Statistics of Final Models: Probability of Casualty
6 months Time Frame
Type I Models very serious serious less serious
0 = 5665 0 = 44124 0 = 26551
1 = 161 1 = 1362 1 = 860
# observations in
final model
Total = 5826 Total = 45486 Total = 27411
# outliers (twins) none none none
Cut Off 0.0276 0.0299 0.0314
LOG PRO LOG PRO LOG PRO
Mc Fadden R2 0.166 0.162 0.139 0.139 0.077 0.077
% Hit Rate y=0 73.93 72.22 70.00 68.28 66.95 66.00
% Hit Rate y=1 71.43 72.67 73.35 75.18 64.07 65.23
% Hit Rate Tot 73.86 72.23 70.10 68.49 66.86 65.97
HL-Stat. (df=8) 9.41 19.54 3.00 16.60 9.75 9.62
p-value 0.3088 0.0120 0.9343 0.0345 0.2832 0.2927
Remarks
w/o passenger vessels
and Caribbean MoU
with passenger vessels but without Caribbean
MoU
In comparing logit with probit, not much difference can be seen in the results other than
that the HL-statistic suggests a better fit for the logit model versus the probit model. The
results are acceptable for the amount of data in each of the models. For visualization of the
results in the next chapter, the probabilities based on the logit model were used.
4.4. Visualization of Results – Frequency of Inspections and Detention
The next two graphs give an overview of the probability of casualty per frequency of
inspection and detention given the ship has been inspected at least once within a six
months time period. The probabilities are averages based on all inspected vessels or all
detained vessels.
Figure 8 shows that the probability of detention decreases with the frequency of inspections
while the probability of serious casualty increases from 3% to 7%. Less serious casualties
increase by about 3% while very serious casualties decrease from 4% to 2% over time and
with increased frequency of inspections. In essence, on could conclude that with increased
amount of inspections, the probability of casualty does not necessarily decrease.
Figure 9 then shows the probability of casualty and how it changes with the frequency of
detention versus not detained ships. The graph shows that for ships that are inspected and
detained six months prior to a casualty, the probability decreases from an average of 2.8%
to 1.8% for very serious casualties over a time period of six years while it increases for
serious and less serious casualties. For less serious casualties, it then decreases again after
the ship has been detained more than 3 times.
The fact that the probability of casualty for serious casualties and less serious casualties
increases with either the frequency of inspection and detention could also indicate the
involvement of a certain human factor associated with these casualties. It might be easier
for port state control to identify very substandard vessels and therefore the effect of
inspections and detentions are expected to be higher for very serious casualties while this is
not the case for serious and less serious casualties. On the other hand, the increased
probability of casualty for increased inspections and detentions also reflects to a certain
extend that higher risk vessels are targeted for inspection. As third reflection, increased
25
inspection or over inspection does not necessarily have a negative effect of the probability of
detention.
Figure 8: Probability of Casualty per Frequency of Inspection (6 months prior)
0.02
0.07
0.04
0.06
0.03
0.04
0.02 0.02
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.08
0.04
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
up to 5 times up to 10 times up to 15 times above 16 times
Probability of Casualty/Detention
very serious serious less serious detention
Note: based on a time frame of six years or 4 complete inspection years and average probabilities of
approx. 50,000 vessels
Figure 9: Probability of Casualty per Frequency of Detention (6 months prior)
0.077
0.038
0.047
0.056
0.051
0.018
0.032 0.028 0.033
0.028
0.039 0.040
0.053
0.061
0.035
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
not detained detained once detained twice detained 3to5 detained>5
Probability of Casualty
very serious serious less serious
Based on average probabilities of approx. 50,000 vessels
26
5. Conclusions on Safety Regimes: Are ships over inspected?
This article provided an overview of the overall complexity of the safety regimes. Many
players are part of the safety systems consisting of a mandatory (statutory) part and a non
mandatory part (industry driven). The mandatory part based on the legal framework and
normally enforced by the flag states is nowadays more and more performed by recognized or
authorized organizations (the classification societies) and as a last resource by the port
states.
The lack of trust in the industry between flag states, port states, classification societies,
insurance companies and cargo owners has created a playground for many inspections
which are performed on certain ship types (oil tankers, chemical tankers and dry bulk
carriers) nowadays in the name of safety. The areas that are inspected in all of these
inspections show a considerable amount of overlapping between statutory and industry
driven inspections. In addition, the safety regimes do not accept port state control
inspections that are performed in another regime. This leaves certain ship types to be
exposed to a relatively large amount of inspections where the inspections are performed
sometimes during critical port operations and take time away from the crew. With
shortened time in ports, the inspections can increase the working hours of shipboard
personnel considerable. None of the inspections takes this into account or actually looks
closer into working and living conditions of the crew in particular the working and resting
hours.
The lack of enforcement of the minimum international standards also shows the political
sensitivity of this topic overall and further underlines the lack of trust and cooperation
between the players and the various port state control regimes. The underlying question is
how the functioning of the safety regimes can be improved and how the money which is
allocated to port state control can be better used to eliminate substandard ships?
The estimated inspection costs of a port state control inspection is USD 747 per inspection
or a total of USD 34,3 million for all types of inspection. Inspections associated with zero
deficiencies and without administrative costs are estimated to be at USD 12,5 million per
year or USD 50 million for the total four year period. Total inspection costs per vessel per
year are estimated to vary from USD 47,000 for tankers to USD 17,500 for other ship types
while the frequency of inspections can also vary considerably but is estimated to be at 11
inspections per year for tankers, 6 for dry bulk carriers and 5 for all other ship types.
Comparing average insurance claim costs of vessels that have been inspected with vessels
that have not been inspected, one can clearly see that the average insurance claim costs are
higher for non inspected vessels and the difference between the two categories is further
highest for tankers.
On could argue that the inspections that are performed on ships with zero deficiencies
which is about 54% of the total inspection dataset and its associated costs (USD 12,5 million
per year) could be used for training and to further created the necessary framework to
harmonize port state control activities by Helping emerging regimes where more
substandard ships are to be found. During the last FSI (14) in June 2006, harmonization of
port state control was considered and a working group established which should create the
necessary framework in order to achieve harmonization.
Aggregated by IMO number, the 54% reduce to only 16%. About 36% of the vessels eligible
for inspections are identified not to have been problematic over the time period in question
and have also not been targeted by the regimes in question. About 7% of the vessels eligible
27
for port state control have been targeted over the time frame but did not have a casualty
and also no deficiencies and therefore represent a group of over-inspected vessels.
About 43% of the vessels can be identified to belong to a group where inspections are
effective in decreasing the probability of casualty where this effect is strongest for very
serious casualties and estimated (depending on the basic ship risk profile) to be a 5%
decrease per inspection. This category can also represent further room for improvement but
shows that port state control is effective. Finally, about 5.3% of PSC eligible vessels have
been targeted correctly but since they had a casualty within six month after the inspection,
the enforcement could be improved. Another portion of 4.7% of ships had a casualty but was
not inspected. This is an area where targeting could be improved.
Based on the average probabilities, one can see that the probability of detention decreases
with the frequency of inspections while the probability of serious casualty increases from
3% to 7%. Less serious casualties increase by about 3% while very serious casualties
decrease from 4% to 2% over time and with increased frequency of inspections. In essence,
on could conclude that with increased amount of inspections, the probability of casualty
does not necessarily decrease.
With respect to the probability of casualty based on detained vessels, one can see that for
ships that are inspected and detained six months prior to a casualty, the probability
decreases from an average of 2.8% to 1.8% for very serious casualties over a time period of
six years while it increases for serious and less serious casualties. For less serious
casualties, it then decreases again after the ship has been detained more than 3 times.
The fact that the probability of casualty for serious casualties and less serious casualties
increases with either the frequency of inspection and detention could also indicate the
involvement of a certain human factor associated with these casualties. It might be easier
for port state control to identify very substandard vessels and therefore the effect of
inspections and detentions are expected to be higher for very serious casualties while this is
not the case for serious and less serious casualties.
28
Bibliography
Alderton T. and Winchester N (2002). “Flag States and Safety: 1997-1999”. Maritime Policy
and Management, Vol 29, No. 2, pp 151-162
Clausen, S. E. (1998). Applied Correspondence Analysis – An Introduction (Sage University
Papers Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07-121).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Cramer, M. , Franses P.H. and Slagter, E. (1999). “Censored Regression Analysis in Large
Samples with Many Zero Observations”, Econometric Institute Research Report 9939/A
Davidson and McKinnon (1993). “Estimation and Inference in Econometrics”, New York:
Oxford University Press, 1993
Franses, P.H. and Paap, R. (2001). Quantitative Models in Marketing Research. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Greene H.W. (2000). Econometric Analysis, Fourth Edition, Econometric Analysis, Prentice
Hall, New Jersey
Goodwin, S. (2006), “Does Work Keep you Awake at night ?” Learning from Marine
Incidents III, Conference, The Royal Intitute of Naval Architects (January 2006: London,
UK)
Harvey, A. (1976) “Estimating Regression Models with Multiplicative Heteroscedasticity.”
Econometrica, 44, pp.461-465
Hill, C., Griffiths, W. and Judge G. (2001). Undergraduate Econometrics, 2nd Edition, New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hosmer, D. and Lemeshow S. (1989). Applied Logistic Regression. New York: John Wiley &
Sons
Keller, G. and Warrack, B. (2003). Statistics for Management and Economics, 6th Edition,
USA: Brooks/Cole – Thomson Learning
Knapp, S. (2004), Analysis of the Maritime Safety Regime – Risk Improvement Possibilities
of the Target Factor (Paris MoU), Master Thesis, Erasmus University, Rotterdam
Soma, T. (2004), Blue-Chip or Sub-Standard, Doctoral Thesis, Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, Trondheim
Spence, L. and Vanden, E. (1990). Calculus with Applications to the Management, Life and
Social Sciences. Illinois: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown Higher Education (A Division of
Scott, Foresman and Company)
Thomas, R.L. (1997). Modern Econometrics – An introduction. Harlow: Addison Wesley
White, H. “Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Misspecified Models.” Econometrica, 53,
pp:1-16
29
Alderton T. and Winchester N (2002). “Flag States and Safety: 1997-1999”. Maritime Policy
and Management, Vol 29, No. 2, pp 151-162
Conference Attendances
Mare Forum: Shipping in a Responsible Society, Quo Vadis? 12th and 13th Sept. 2005, Rome,
Italy
Royal Institution of Naval Architects: Learning from Marine Incidents III, 25th and 26th
January 2006, London, UK
Connecticut Maritime Association: Shipping 2006: 20th to 22nd March 2006, Stamford,
Connecticut, USA
IMO Legislative Resources including IMO Proceedings (as Observer)
IMO Proceedings (Attendance as Observer):
Sub-Committee Meeting on Flag State Implementation – FSI (13), 7th to 11th March 2005,
IMO, London
Committee Meeting on Maritime Safety – MSC (80), 17th to 20th May 2005, IMO, London
General Assembly – 24th Session, 21st November to 2nd December 2005, IMO, London
Sub-Committee on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping – STCW (37), 23rd January to
27th January 2006, IMO, London
Committee Meeting on Maritime Safety – MSC (81), 9th to 15th May 2006, IMO, London
Sub-Committee Meeting on Flag State Implementation – FSI (14), 6th to 9th June 2006,
IMO, London
Conventions:
International Convention on Load Lines (LL), 1966 and Protocol 1988, adopted 5th April
1966, IMO, London
International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC),1969 and
Protocols 1976/1992, adopted 1969, IMO, London
International Convention of 1996 on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection
with the Carriage of Harzardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (not in force yet), IMO,
London
International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001 (Bunker
Oil Convention), adopted March 2001, IMO, London
International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, IMO Publication, London, 2004
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships with Annexes I to VI,
1973/1978 (MARPOL), Consolidated Edition, IMO Publication, London, 2001
30
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974 and Protocols 1978
and 1988, Consolidated Edition, IMO Publication, London, 2004
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers (STCW), 1978, IMO Publication, London
The Torremolinos International Convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels, adopted 1977
and superseded by the 1993 Protocol, adopted April 1993 (not yet in force)
Codes and Resolutions:
Code of safe practice for solid bulk cargoes (BC Code) and Code for the construction and
equipment of ships carrying dangerous chemicals in bulk (IBC Code) adopted December 85
by resolution MEPC 19(22), IMO, London
Code of practice for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers, adopted November 1997
by Assembly Resolution A862 (20), IMO, London
Code of safe practice for cargo stowage and securing, adopted November 1991 by Assembly
Resolution A 714(17), IMO, London
Fire Safety Systems Code, adopted December 2000 by MSC 98(73), IMO, London
International Code of safety for high-speed craft, adopted May 1994 at MSC 36 (63), IMO,
London
International Code for the construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gas in
Bulk and Old Gas Carrier Code for ships constructed before 1st October 1994 as per
resolution MSC 5 (48), IMO, London
International Code for the Construction and Equipment of ships carrying dangerous
chemicals in bulk, adopted 1993, IMO, London
International Code for security of ships and of port facilities, adopted 2002, IMO, London
International Life Saving Appliance Code, adopted June 1996 by MSC 48(66), IMO, London
International Safety Management Code and Guidelines on Implementation of the ISM
Code, IMO Publication, London, 2002
IMO Resolution A.682 (17): Regional Co-Operation in the Control of Ships and Discharges,
adopted November 1991, IMO, London
IMO Resolution A.746 (18): Survey Guidelines under the Harmonized System of Survey &
Certification, IMO, London
IMO Resolution A.973 (24): Code for the Implementation of Mandatory IMO Instruments,
IMO, London
IMO Resolution A.974 (24): Framework and Procedures for the Voluntary IMO Member
State Audit Scheme, IMO, London
31
IMO Resolution A.739 (18): Guidelines for the Authorization of Organizations acting on
behalf of the Administration, IMO, London
IMO Resolution A.787(19) and A.822(21), Procedures for Port State Control, IMO
Publication, London, 2001
Circulars, Committee Working Papers and any Other Documents:
FSI/14/WP.3, Harmonization of Port State Control Activities, PSC on Seafarer’s Working
Hours, Development of Guidelines on Port State Control Under the 2004 BWM Convention,
Report of the Working Group, Flag State Implementation Sub-Committee Meeting, IMO,
London, 8th June 2006
FSI/14/WP.5 Add.1, Draft Report to the Maritime Safety Committee and the Marine
Environment Protection Committee, Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation, IMO,
London, 9th June 2006
MSC/Circ. 1023, MEPC/Circ. 392, Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for use in
the IMO Rule-Making Process, IMO, London, 4th April 2002
MSC81/18, Formal Safety Assessment, Report of the correspondence group, submitted by
the Netherlands, MSC 81/18, Maritime Safety Committee, IMO, London, 7th February 2006
MSC 81/17/1, The Role of the Human Element, Assessment of the impact and effectiveness
of implementation of the ISM Code, IMO Secretariat, Maritime Safety Committee Meeting
81, London, 21st December 2005
MSC/Circ. 953, MEPC/Circ. 372, Reports on Marine Casualties and Incidents, Revised
harmonized reporting procedures, 14th December 2000, IMO, London
MSC/Circ. 1014, Guidance on Fatigue Mitigation and Management, IMO, London, 12th June
2001
National Legislative Resources including EU Law
Australian Navigation Act of 1912, The Power of Inspections of Surveyors and Detentions of
Ships not registered in Australia: http://scaletext.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/516/top.htm
Bahamas Maritime Authority, Flag State Inspection Report, received from the Bahamas
Maritime Authority directly, London, March 2006
Canadian Marine Insurance Act of 1993, c.22 – Loss and Abandonment,
https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/canlii.org/ca/sta/m-0.6/sec57.html
Code of Safety for Caribbean Cargo Ships (CCSS Code), Cargo Ships less than 500 gt,
adopted 1996, Barbados
https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/uscg.mil/hq/g-m/pscweb/code_of_safety_for_caribbean_car.htm
Directive 106/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19th December
2001 amending Council Directive 95/21/EC concerning the enforcement, in respect of
shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the
32
Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and
shipboard living and working conditions (port State control)
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/index.html)
Proposal for a Directive on Port State Control, COM (2005), 588 final version of 23rd
November 2005
http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/maritime/safety/2005_package_3_en.htm
Proposal for a Directive on the civil liability and financial securities of shipowners, COM
(2005), 593 final version of 23rd November 2005
http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/maritime/safety/2005_package_3_en.htm
Proposal for a Directive establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation
of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Directive 1999/35/EC and
2002/59/EC, COM (2005). 590 final version of 23rd November 2005
http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/maritime/safety/2005_package_3_en.htm
Council Framework Decision 2005/667/JHA of 12th July 2005 to strengthen the criminal-law
framework for the enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/maritime/safety/2005_package_3_en.htm
Directive 2005/35/EC of 7th September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction
of penalties for infringements.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/maritime/safety/2005_package_3_en.htm
Final Regulatory Impact Assessment – Draft Merchant Shipping (Port State Control
Amendment) Regulations 2003, MCA
International Labor Organization, Maritime Labor Convention 2006,
https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/sector/papers/maritime/consolcd/overview.htm
Malta Maritime Authority, Flag State Inspection Report, received from Inspector directly
Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Caribbean Region, received
from IMO Regional Maritime Adviser (Caribbean) at IMO, London.
Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control for the Indian Ocean Region as of 1st
Oct. 2000, https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/indianmou.org
Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific Region containing
8th Amendment, 23rd Nov. 2004, https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/tokyomou.org
Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control Including 27th Amendment,
adopted 13th May 2005, https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/parismou.org
Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control, Annual Reports 2002, 2003
and 2004, https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/parismou.org
Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control, Manual for PSC Officers,
Revision 8
USCG Marine Safety Manual, Vol. II, Section D: Port State Control
https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/uscg.mil/hq/g-m/pscweb/Publication.htm
33
USCG Port State Control Speech
https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/uscg.mil/hq/g-m/pscweb/psc_speech.pdf
United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea:
https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm
Wikipedia, Legal Definitions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legal_terms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_average
Other Accessible Resources
BIMCO/ISF, Manpower 2005 Update, The worldwide demand for and supply of seafarers,
Institute for Employment Research, Coventry, 2005
Chemical Distribution Institute (CDI), Ship Inspection Report, Chemical Tanker, 5th
Edition, 2003, London
Fearnley’s Review 2004, Fearnresearch, Oslo, 2005
Fearnley’s World Bulk Trades 2003, Fearnresearch, Oslo, 2003
IACS, Class – What, Why and How, www.iacs.org.uk/_pdf/Class_WhatWhy&How.PDF
International Transport Worker’s Federation, Seafarer fatigue: Wake up to the dangers, ITF,
London
ISL Shipping Statistics and Market Review (SSMR), Volume 49 (2005), Institute of
Shipping Economics and Logistics, Bremen
ISM Code Training Manual for DNV Auditors, DNV ISM Code Auditor Course, Part I-V
Lloyd’s Maritime Atlas of World Ports and Shipping Places, Lloyd’s Marine Intelligence
Unit, T&F Informa, UK, 2004
Marine Accident Investigation Branch, Bridge Watchkeeping Safety Study, July 2004,
Southampton
Main Characteristics of CAP and CAS Compared, DNV Presentation, 2005
OCIMF (Oil Companies International Marine Forum), Vessel Inspection Questionnaire for
Bulk Oil Tankers, Combination Carriers and Shuttle Tankers, 3rd Edition, May 2005
OCIMF (Oil Companies International Marine Forum), Tanker Management and Self
Assessement, A Best-Practice Guide for Ship Operators, First Edition 2004, London
Reyner, L. and Baulk S, (1998), Fatigue in Ferry Crews: A Pilot Study, Seafarers
International Research Center, Cardiff, 1998
Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Ships, Part 1, Edition July 2003, Lloyd’s
Register, London 2003
34
Rules for Classification and Construction/Ship Technology, Edition 2005, Germanischer
Lloyd, Hamburg, 2005
Selection & Accreditation of Rightship Tanker Inspectors, received from Rightship directly,
Australia
SeaCure for Operations 2004, 9th Edition, Rev. O, Greenaward Foundation, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands
Ship Inspection System, Final Inspection Report for Dry Cargo Ships, received from
Rightship directly, Australia
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Review of Maritime Transport,
2004, https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/unctad.org/Templates/StartPage.asp?intItemID=2614&lang=1
Interviews
Bergot, G., and Barbeira-Gordon, S. (2004). Interview by author, European Commission,
Directorate-General for Energy and Transport, Brussels, June 2004
Bergot, G. and Gonzalez-Gil, J. (2005), Interview by author, European Commission,
Directorate-General for Energy and Transport, Brussels, October 2005
Castex, B. M. (2005 & 2006), Interview by Author, IMO Secretariat, during proceedings of
General Assembly, STCW and MSC, IMO, London, 22nd -23rd November 2005, 23rd January
2006 and 14th May 2006
Davidson, C. and Rimington D. (2005), Interview by Author, Australian Maritime Safety
Authority, during proceedings of General Assembly, IMO, London, 22nd -23rd November
2005
De Graeve, W. (2004), Interview by Author, Federal Public Service Mobility and Transport,
Maritime Transport, Maritime Inspectorate, Antwerp, July 2004
Dudley, J. Capt. (2005), Interview by Author, Koch Supply & Trading Ltd, Rotterdam,
October 2005
Downs Tim J. Capt. and George, D. Capt.,(2005) Interview by Author, Shell Trading and
Shipping Company Ltd, London, November 2005
Fransen, J. and Capt. Den Heijer, R. (2004). Interview by Author, Green Award
Foundation, Rotterdam
Gardiner, C.R. D. (2005), Interview by Author, Office of the Permanent Representative to
IMO (Antigua & Barbuda), during proceedings of MSC, IMO, London, 11th -20th May 2005
Groves, B. (2006), Interview by Author, Australian Maritime Safety Authority, during
proceedings of STCW, IMO, London, 23rd – 27th January 2006
35
Harts, P. (2004). Interview by Author, Inspectorate Transport and Water Management,
Netherlands Shipping Inspectorate, Rotterdam
Hassing, S. (2006), Interview by Author, Dutch Directorate for Transport Safety, during
proceedings of STCW, IMO, London, 23rd – 27th January 2006
Huisink, G.J. (2005), Interview by Author, Royal Association of Netherlands’ Shipowners,
Rotterdam, October 2005
Hutchinson, D. Capt. (2005), Interview by Author, Bahamas Maritime Authority, during
proceedings of General Assembly, IMO, London, 22nd -23rd November 2005
Jansen, P. Capt. (2005), Interview by Author, Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure,
Antwerp, November 2005
Kamstra, P.C. (2004), Interview by Author, Inspectorate Transport and Water
Management, Netherlands Shipping Inspectorate, Rotterdam.
Kinley, M. and Evans, B. (2005), Interview by Author, Australian Maritime Safety
Authority, during proceedings of FSI , IMO, London, 7th -11th March 2005
Koorneef, C.W. (2004). Interview by Author, Department of Noxious and Dangerous Goods,
Port of Rotterdam, Rotterdam
Koert, C. (2004), Interview by Author, Department of Noxious and Dangerous Goods, Port of
Rotterdam, Rotterdam
Mansell, J. (2006), Interview by Author, New Zealand Maritime Authority, during
proceedings of FSI, IMO, London, 6th June 2006
Monzon, A.M. (2005), Interview by Author, Prefectura Naval Argentina, during proceedings
of FSI, IMO, London, 7th -11th March 2005
Morton, L. (2006), Interview by Author, Exxon Mobile, June 2006, Rotterdam
Norman, W. Capt. (2005), Interview by Author, RightShip, Mare Forum Conference, Rome,
12th -13th September 2005
Parr, P. and Dolby, P. (2006), Interview by Author, UK Shipping Policy Unit and MCA,
London, January 2006
Pas, D. (2005), Interview by Author, Directorate for Transport Safety (former Senior Policy
Advisor), Erasmus University, Rotterdam, November 2005
Salwegter, A. (2004), Interview by Author, Inspectorate Transport and Water Management,
Netherlands Shipping Inspectorate, Rotterdam
Sakurada, Y. (2005), Interview by Author, DNV Senior Surveyor, Rotterdam, October 2005
Scheres, G. (2004), Interview by Author, Inspectorate Transport and Water Management,
Netherlands Shipping Inspectorate, Rotterdam
36
Schiferli, R. (2005), Interview by Author, Paris MoU Secretariat, Den Hague, November
2005
Snow, G. (2006), Interview by Author, Oil Companies International Marine Forum, London,
May 2006
Thorne Paul Cdr. and E.J. Terminella Cdr. (2005), Interview by Author, USCG Foreign &
Offshore Compliance Division, during proceedings of FSI, IMO, London, 7th -11th March
2005
Turenhout, H., van der Veer G.J. and Kreuze, A. (2006), Interview by Author, Jo Tankers,
Rotterdam, June 2006
Whittle, M. A., Interview by Author, Chemical Distribution Institute, London, November
2005
Wright, C. (2006), Interview by Author, Permanent Secretary of IACS, London, January
2006
Zecchin, L. A. (2005), Interview by Author, Prefectura Naval Argentina, during proceedings
at General Assembly, IMO, London, 22nd -23rd November 2005
Ship Visits, Inspections, Surveys
The ship names and IMO numbers are not disclosed as per the request of some of the ship
owners/operators.
PSC Inspection: Flag: Luxembourg, Ship Type: Containership, Surveyor: Aarnout
Salwegter, Rotterdam, June 2004
PSC Inspection: Flag: Syria, Ship Type: General Cargo, Surveyor: Walter De Graeve,
Antwerp, July 2004
PSC Inspection: Flag: Cyprus, Ship Type: General Cargo, Surveyor: Walter De Graeve,
Antwerp, July 2004
PSC Expanded Inspection: Flag: Grand Caymans, Ship Type: Bulk Carrier, Surveyor:
Aarnout Salwegter, Amsterdam, August 2005
PSC inspection/Detention: Flag: Ukraine, Ship Type: General Cargo, Inspector: J. P. Van
Byten, Antwerp, October 2005.
PSC safety inspection: Flag: Hong Kong, Ship Type: Dry Bulk, Inspector in charge: Ralph
Savercool, New York, March 2006
PSC security inspection: Flag: Liberia, Ship Type: Container, Inspector in charge: Diane R.
Semmling, New York, March 2006
PSC security inspection: Flag: Panama, Ship Type: Container, Inspector in charge: Diane R.
Semmling, New York, March 2006
37
Flag State Inspection: Flag: Malta, Ship Type: Container, Surveyor: Henk Engelsman,
Rotterdam, August 2005
Flag State Inspection: Flag: Malta, Ship Types: Bulk Carrier, Surveyor: Henk Engelsman,
Rotterdam, October 2005,
Class Annual Survey and Underwater Diving Inspection: Flag: Norwegian International
Register, Ship Type: Oil/Bulk Carrier, Surveyor: Yuri Sakurada, DNV, Rotterdam, March
2005
Class Annual Survey: Flag: Norwegian International Register, Ship Type: Chemical
Tanker, Surveyor: Yuri Sakurada, DNV, Rotterdam, May 2005
Class Annual Survey: Flag: Malta, Ship Type: Crude Oil Tanker, Surveyor: Rob Pijper,
Lloyd’s Register, Rotterdam, November 2005.
Class Annual Survey: Flag: Barbados, Ship Type: General Cargo Ship, Surveyor: Pieter
Andringa, Germanischer Lloyd, Rotterdam, October 2005.
Class Renewal Survey: Ship Name: Flag: Dutch, Ship Type: Chemical/Oil Product Tanker,
Surveyor: Rob Pijper, Lloyd’s Register, Rotterdam Damen Shipyard, August 2005
Class Follow Up: Flag: Cyprus, Ship Type: Bulk Carrier, Surveyor: Rob Pijper, Lloyd’s
Register, Rotterdam, September 2005
ISM Audit: Flag: Liberia, Ship Type: Juice Carrier, Surveyor: Rob Pijper, Lloyd’s Register,
Rotterdam, October 2005
Vetting Inspection (CDI): Flag: Dutch, Ship Type: Chemical Tanker, Inspector (CDI): Henk
Engelsman, Rotterdam, August 2005
Vetting Inspection (CDI): Flag: Bahamas, Ship Type: Chemical/Oil Tanker, Inspector (CDI):
Henk Engelsman, Rotterdam, October 2005;
Vetting Inspection (SIRE, Kuwait Oil): Flag: Sweden, Ship Type: Oil Tanker, Inspector
(OCIMF): Henk Engelsman, Rotterdam, September 2005
Vetting Inspection (SIRE, Eni Oil): Flag: Saudi Arabia, Ship Type: Chemical Tanker,
Inspector (OCIMF): Henk Engelsman, Rotterdam, October 2005;
Vetting Inspection (SIRE, Statoil): Flag: Sweden, Ship Type: Tanker, Inspector (OCIMF):
Henk Engelsman, Rotterdam, June 2006
Vetting Inspection (SIRE, Statoil): Flag: Liberia, Ship Type: Oil Tanker, Inspector (OCIMF):
Henk Engelsman, Rotterdam, June 2006
Vetting Inspection (Rightship): Flag: Hong Kong, Ship Type: Dry Bulk Carrier, Inspector
(Rightship): Dennis Barber, Ijmuiden, March 2006
P&I Club Inspection: Flag: Greece, Ship Type: Bulk Carrier, Inspector: Walter Vervloesem,
Ghent, October 2005;
38
Marpol Inspection: Flag: Norway, Ship Type: Oil Tanker, Port Superindendent: Mr. CeesWillem Koorneef, Rotterdam, August 2004
Marpol Inspection: Flag: Panama, Ship Type:OBO, Port Superindendent: Mr. Cees-Willem
Koorneef, Rotterdam, August 2004
Ship Visit (VLCC): Flag: Bahamas, Ship Type: Oil Tanker, Class: ABS, Rotterdam, October
2005
39
Appendix
Appendix 1: Grouping of Countries of Ownership
The grouping of ownership of a vessel was made according to Alderton and Winchester
(1999) and is as follows:
1. Old Open Registries: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bermuda, Cyprus, Honduras,
Liberia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Panama, St. Vincent & the Grenadines
2. New Open Registries: Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Cambodia, Canary Islands, Cayman
Islands, Cook Islands, Equatorial Guinea, Gibraltar, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Mauritius,
Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Tuvalu and Vanuatu
3. International Registries: Anguila, British Virgin Islands, Channel Islands, DIS,
Falklands, Faeroes, Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Kerguelen Islands, Macao, Madeira, NIS,
Philippines, Sao Tome and Principe, Singapore, Turks and Caicos, Ukraine, Wallis and
Fortuna, Netherlands Antilles
4. Traditional Maritime Nations: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada,
Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan,
Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Russia, South Africa, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, UK, Uruguay, USA, Venezuela.
5. Emerging Maritime Nations: Albania, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain,
Bangladesh, Benin, Brunei, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Comoro,
Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El
Salvador, Ecuador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana,
Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq,
Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, North Korea, South Korea,
Kuwait, Laos, Latvia, Libya, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania,
Micronesia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan,
Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Qatar, Romania, St. Helena, St. Kitts &
Nevis, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Solomon Islands, Somalia Republic, Sudan, Surinam, Syria, Taiwan, Tanzania,
Thailand, Togo, Trinidad, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, UAE, Vietnam, Yemen
6. Other/Unknown: Undefined by dataset, Unknown (Fairplay), Azores, Cameroon,
Greenland, Monaco, Puerto Rico, Serbia & Montenegro, St. Pierre & Miquel

Published by

Medical

View all posts