Norwegian family-owned shipping and offshore enterprise Ugland Marine Services has confirmed a fleetwide order of Navarino’s Spectrum, following a successful 3-month trial.

Spectrum offers a centralised platform for remote monitoring, maintenance and management of the entire IT and connectivity infrastructure onboard a vessel, and provides various options to comply with cyber-risk management regulations.

Mr. Marius Kjølleberg, senior ICT security consultant at Ugland, spoke with the Navarino team about the service potential and the functionalities that Spectrum offers. He explained, “Our primary reasons for choosing Spectrum were the Windows Update functionalities and the asset management tools. When we have, let’s say, 10 client computer systems onboard, it is a much faster process to download Windows Updates through Spectrum than to individually download them on each piece of IT infrastructure, which will ultimately make our lives quite a bit easier. Not only this, but this minimises data consumption, supporting the financial goals of the company.”

For Ugland it was also important to choose a service with solid asset management capabilities to ensure compliance with the new IMO regulations. The Asset Management component supports any asset category with an emphasis on those categories that are specific to the maritime sector.

Ugland will benefit from a range of functionalities, such as defining custom asset categories, providing a flexible and complete solution. The asset categories include both equipment that is connected to the vessel’s IT network as well as to OT assets. With Spectrum, network-enabled equipment is populated automatically, providing a complete picture of equipment, software catalog and network topology. This information is available in printable reports from both the vessel’s dashboard and the centralised fleet-wide dashboard.

“We have a good open relationship with Navarino. If I need something tweaked, I can speak with the team and get the service adapted. Navarino also provides a very dynamic range of services which we definitely benefit from. For example, all of our vessels use Navarino’s most advanced Infinity solution, Infinity Cube. This also makes Spectrum so easy to install as the service can be easily deployed using Infinity, whereby no extra hardware is required,” Mr Kjølleberg explained.

“Overall, we look forward to seeing what opportunities Spectrum holds. The service has many functionalities that we haven’t yet discovered. Although Ugland already have an extensive IT department, we feel that Spectrum would be particularly beneficial for companies looking for extra support with their IT infrastructure”.

SOURCE READ THE FULL ARTICLE

https://thedigitalship.com/news/maritime-software/item/7345-ugland-rolls-out-spectrum-by-navarino


OCIMF released a new information paper to provide guidance on the Handling, Storage, Use, Maintenance and Testing of STS Hoses.

Namely, OCIMF offers guidance to STS Service Providers, Masters, and operators of ships that use hose assemblies to transfer liquid-bulk cargoes via STS and to minimise hose damage from improper handling and storing.

To remind, hose strings used during Ship-to-Ship (STS) transfers in a side-by-side configuration are a critical link between the two ships. They are subjected to repeated lifting, bending and folding and to the dynamic forces of ship movements at sea. All of these can result in loads and stresses within the hose.

To provide greater reliability and longer life, hoses should be handled, stored, maintained, inspected and tested correctly at appropriate intervals.

Information about the size, length, type and quantity of the hose strings being delivered should be provided to the ships involved in the transfer so they can prepare their manifolds in advance. Any hoses supplied for the transfer should be provided with the most recent test certificate for tests undertaken at intervals not exceeding one year. More stringent testing frequency may apply based on local regulations.

When employed, the STS Provider’s representative should be on deck in the manifold region of one of the vessels and visible to both ship’s crew in order to ensure safe hose-handling practices are observed during hose connection and disconnection.

A competent ship’s officer should be on deck during the handling and assembly of the STS transfer hoses and take a lead role in the management of STS hose operations aboard their ship, including:

  • Lifting hoses from the Lightering Support Vessel (LSV) onto the ship
  • Hose deployment to other ship including verification of hose securing/supporting arrangement
  • Hose string assembly
  • Hose connection
  • Hose deployment to the other ship
  • Hose disconnection and draining
  • Hose recovery
  • Disassembly
  • Lowering hoses down from the ship deck into the LSV

In 1990, a new type of rubber cargo hose was developed to meet the unique requirements of offshore STS transfers. It is important to note that rubber STS hoses do not conform to any internationally recognised standard such as the International Standards Organization (ISO), British Standards (BS) or European Standards (EN). Manufacturers generally align with BS EN 1765 Rubber Hose Assemblies for Oil Suction and Discharge Services for the assemblies.

Rubber STS hose assemblies closely align with the specifics of EN 1765 Type L (Light Weight) Hoses. Type L hoses are helix-free, do not suffer permanent deformation and are designed to be used where light weight, ease of handling and increased flexibility is required. They differ from the standard in that:

  • They feature a heavy-duty design with a high burst safety factor.
  • The cover may be designed to be more durable but with reduced oil-resistant properties.
  • STS hoses are commonly rated for 15 bar Maximum Working Pressure (MWP).

Other hose types may be used in STS operations depending on geographical location, local requirements and other specific operational needs. Further guidance on specific hose types should be sought from the hose manufacturer.

 

SOURCE READ THE FULL ARTICLE

https://safety4sea.com/ocimf-proper-handling-and-storage-of-sts-hoses/


After a recent incident, the Union of Captains and Deck Officials (UCOC) of the Panama Canal warned about the “imminent risk” that the the use of “deficient equipment” poses.

According to the UCOC, on June 4 an LPG gas tanker that was in transit almost collided with the structures of the Miraflores Locks.

UCOC added that the tugs in the Panama Canal ”do not meet the standards required to attend to daily operation.”

The union explained that during the maneuver, the tugboats suffered damage to their machines. However, thanks to the expertise of the tugboat captain, it was possible to brake the ship in time, avoiding an accident.

That is why, as professionals responsible for the maritime industry, we ask the administration of the ACP to conduct an exhaustive investigation into the true causes of this fact, which transcended public opinion through social networks

UCOC stated.

What is more, the union hoghlighted that the following must be clarified in reference to the incident:

  1. Did the tugs arrive on time for their assignment?
  2. Where they moored to the ship correctly and according to the procedures?
  3. The bow tug did not push the vessel when moored and did not deviate it from its course.
  4. The stern tug did not push the vessel when moored and did not increase its speed.

On the other hand, the UCOC denounced the alleged intentions by the administration to use ”these deficient and unreliable equipment in the Expanded Canal”, as such an action entails a risk of possible damage to the canal facilities, and potential injuries.

We want to express once again, as Tug Captains and Deck Officers, our commitment to continue working so that our nation’s greatest asset, the Panama Canal, continues to offer the world a free, safe, reliable and uninterrupted transit

concluded the association.

 

SOURCE READ THE FULL ARTICLE

https://safety4sea.com/deficient-equipment-could-cause-catastrophic-accident-at-panama-canal/


has technical causes.

This was closely followed by

I have sometimes heard: “80% Human Error, what are we going to do about it”. Well, I have good news: if you would want to reduce it, that is very easy. Just build bad ships and put even worse equipment on board and you will see the percentage of Human Error in accidents reduce dramatically. The only downturn is that you will have to accept an increase in the number of accidents.

I have discovered that such a BOOM can be an overkill. I noticed that some people needed so much time to recover, that they missed part of the rest of the presentation. Some were taken aback, thinking that I was looking for a confrontation…

So I have developed a better sized BOOM, and hope that this is sufficient to raise your interest, without triggering negative feelings. My new start:

Just suppose you want to buy a car, and the seller notices that safety is an important issue for you. Just suppose that he will say: this is not such a good car: almost 100 % of the accidents with this car are because of “Human Error”. That other car is much safer: only 60 % of the accidents are because of “Human Error”, the other accidents are because of brakes failing, steering break-downs, etc etc. Would you agree with this seller?

In fact, what happens as soon as there is any systemic technical problem with a car? There will be a recall! In 2018, Toyota recalled more than 2,4 million Prius cars because of possible power stall in rare circumstances. Toyota declined to say if an actual accident did happen…. In road traffic we’re talking in excess of 99% “Human Error”…..and no one would want it differently. Actually we don’t even discuss it. I am quite sure that in road traffic 20% accidents due to technical failures would be absolutely unacceptable. It would be nice if we could reduce this irritating figure of 20% “Technical Failures” in shipping too! (realising that – while reducing the number of accidents – this would automatically increase the percentage “Human Error”)

My hypothesis is that any mature, well developed system is bound to have a high percentage “Human Error”. As the system develops, and the reasons for technical failures are analysed, these are remedied. The number of technical failures will then reduce. On the human side, as the system develops, risks are better known, and procedures will be developed, bringing down the number of accidents due to “Human Error”. However, humans will continue to have to make decisions based on incomplete information, while having to serve multiple, partly conflicting goals, in an imperfect designed and regulated environment. So it is much harder to bring down this number. The sum total is much less accidents, and as accidents attributes to technical failures reduce even more than accidents attributed to “Human Error” , the percentage “Human Error” will increase. A high percentage “Human Error” is an indication that the people at the sharp end are given tools that are ‘fit for purpose’.

I like to just play with numbers to gain a better understanding of what the ramifications of statements are. Let’s just do that with this statement: suppose that in a developing system there are 1000 incidents, 500 due to technical failures and 500 due to “Human Error”. As the system matures, and the technical requirements are better known, adding a bit of steel here, fixing that connection, making that part a bit more resilient, brings down the number due to technical failure to 50. Better selection, training and procedures brings down “Human Error” to 150. So over the years safety increased dramatically. Accidents due to technical failures reduced from 500 to 50. Accidents due to “Human Error” reduced from 500 to 150. The total number of accidents reduced from 1000 to 200. In percentages the total number of incidents reduced by 80%, but “Human Error” has gone up from 50% to 75%(!) while technical failure reduced from 50% to 25%. Although I don’t know of any research on the subject, I’m convinced that in the 17th century the percentage “Human Error” was much lower than presently, as many accidents happened because of technical failures, or uncontrollable circumstances.

By the way, although it can be assumed that mature, well developed systems have a high percentage of “Human Error”, this can not be turned around: a system with a high percentage “Human Error” does not necessarily have to be a mature, well developed system. There is always the possibility that a high percentage “Human Error” is due to insufficient selection, training, experience etc. However for a mature, regulated system it is unlikely that this would play a large part.

The message I want to bring across with this article is quite simple: Mature, well developed systems are bound to have a low percentage of technical failures. Consequently these systems will have a high percentage if Human Error. There is no need for a knee-jerk reaction to try to reduce this. Most likely it is a good sign and there is no need to reduce this percentage! We need other indicators to know what needs improvement and how that could be achieved.

 

SOURCE READ THE FULL ARTICLE

https://safety4sea.com/those-irritating-20/


The Marine Safety Forum has published a Safety Alert relating to the discovery of a leak in a tank caused by corrosion. The incident highlights issues associated with the disposal of caustic chemicals.

The incident

The Chief Engineer was carrying out daily tank-sounding routines in the engine room when he observed an unexpected rise in liquid level. The frequency of soundings was increased and monitored closely for 24hrs.

The next day, the Chief Engineer informed the Master that the tank volume had increased by approximately 200 litres and requested permission to open the tank for investigation. A risk assessment and permit to work for dangerous space entry was actioned and the tank opened for inspection later that day.

GET THE SAFETY4SEA IN YOUR INBOX!

Upon investigation, the Chief Engineer discovered a pinhole leak in the structure beneath the sounding pipe, allowing salt water to enter the space from outside the tank. The Master informed the Duty Technical Manager, and the vessel was sent to a layby berth for repairs.

 

Probable causes

Initial investigation by the ship’s engineers concluded that the striking plate at the bottom of the sounding pipe was missing. This allowed the brass weight to repeatedly strike the steelwork, damaging the paint coating and exposing the steelwork to corrosion.

Further investigation concluded the following:

  • The tank had been inspected and maintained in accordance with company procedure;
  • The brass weight of the sounding tape had damaged the paint coating on the striking plate and steelwork below;
  • A  corrosive  chemical  had  been  incorrectly  disposed  of  and introduced  to  the  tank,  accelerating  the  corrosion process;
  • The  acid  may  have  become  trapped  under  bubbles  of  damaged  paint,  allowing  concentrated  corrosion  over  the short time;
  • The combination of exposed steelwork and caustic solution destroyed the striking plate and steelwork below.

 

Actions taken

  • Effective repairs were carried out onboard in collaboration with third-party welders and divers;
  • All crew was reminded of the importance of correct chemical handling – including safe disposal. Onboard a vessel, there are many different chemicals used; some of these chemicals pose a serious health risk with some being extremely caustic. These chemicals should be used in the appropriate and prescribed way and not misused;
  • MSDS  (Material  Safety  Data  Sheet)  sheets  are  provided  for safety and information  and contain all relevant information about the chemical, such as the physical and chemical properties, hazard identification, handling and storage and disposal considerations;
  • Caustic or otherwise dangerous chemicals, and their containers, should be disposed of at an authorized hazardous or special waste collection point in accordance with any local regulation.

Vessels must ensure that after using caustic chemicals, the contents/container are disposed of to an authorized hazardous or special waste collection point in accordance with any local regulation. Should you be unsure where or how to dispose of any chemical, please contact the office, or waste disposal provider on the approved supplier list,

…the MSF advised.

SOURCE READ THE FULL ARTICLE

https://safety4sea.com/lessons-learned-tank-corrosion-causes-leak/


A US Naval ship provided emergency assistance to 15 crew members of a sinking general cargo ship in the Gulf of Aden, on 7 June.

The Military Sealift Command oiler ‘USNS Patuxent’ was notified by the UK Maritime Trade Operations watch center that the motor vessel ‘Falcon Line’ had experienced engine failure and was taking on water.

GET THE SAFETY4SEA IN YOUR INBOX!

Upon arriving on the scene, Patuxent shielded the Falcon Line crew from heavy winds and high seas so the crew could board lifeboats, the US Navy informed. The naval ship safely recovered the 15 crew members and provided them with food, water and medical screening.

210608-N-N0748-1002 GULF OF ADEN (June 8, 2021) – Crew members of a motor vessel Falcon Line climb aboard the Military Sealift Command (MSC) fleet replenishment oiler USNS Patuxent (T-AO 201) during rescue operations in the Gulf of Aden, June 8. Patuxent is deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations in support of naval operations to ensure maritime stability and security in the Central Region, connecting the Mediterranean and Pacific through the western Indian Ocean and three strategic choke points / Credit: U.S. Navy

The US 5th Fleet is now coordinating with the owner of Falcon Line and other authorities to determine the most appropriate location to debark the crew members.

SOLAS Convention (1974) outlines the obligation of all mariners to provide assistance to those in distress at sea.

As professional mariners, our forces have a duty to help those in need at sea. The sailors and civilian mariners aboard ships like Patuxent have answered this call before, and they will continue to do so whenever possible,

…said Navy Capt. Michael O’Driscoll, commander of Task Force (TF) 53.

The US 5th Fleet area of operations encompasses about 2.5 million square miles of water area and includes the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Red Sea, and parts of the Indian Ocean.

SOURCE READ THE FULL ARTICLE

https://safety4sea.com/mariners-rescued-from-sinking-ship-in-gulf-of-aden/


Jun 12 UPDATE: Tanker is still adrift as of 0700 UTC Jun 12, with sister-ship NAVIGATOR SATURN (IMO 9177569) circling around, so looks like there’s some serious problem they’re dealing with.

UPDATE, management Statement:
Tanker suffered a loss of power but the crew remain on board and have not abandoned the ship.

Jun 11: LPG tanker NAVIGATOR NEPTUNE on Jun 11 is reported abandoned, adrift in the Pacific 615 nm NW of Honolulu, information requires confirmation, more details. The ship’s en route from Houston USA to Kaohsiung Taiwan, ETA Jun 26. As of 0630 UTC Jun 11 AIS was on, the ship adrift, sister ship NAVIGATOR SATURN (IMO 9177569) looks like she’s steaming to distressed NAVIGATOR NEPTUNE.
Awaiting updates, confirmation.

New FleetMon Vessel Safety Risk Reports Available: https://www.fleetmon.com/services/vessel-risk-rating/

 

SOURCE READ THE FULL ARTICLE

https://www.fleetmon.com/maritime-news/2021/34129/lpg-tanker-reported-abandoned-drifting-north-pacif/


Read our latest COVID-19 impact on shipping updates in our new online publication. You can now quickly view, print or search the countries relevant to you.

The below is a brief summary of information we have received so far that has the potential to impact ship operations.

Last updated: 10 June 2021

For more information on the coronavirus outbreak, visit our Industry Expertise area.

 

SOURCE READ THE FULL ARTICLE

https://www.nepia.com/industry-news/coronavirus-outbreak-impact-on-shipping/


Bulk carrier ALBERTA suffered rudder failure or jam, in the afternoon Jun 11 in Dardanelles north of Canakkale, while transiting the Strait in northern direction. Two SAR tugs took the ship under control, she transited the Strait, understood assisted or escorted by tugs, and was anchored in Marmara sea off the Strait in Sevketiye waters. As of 0530 UTC Jun 12, she was still at anchor. Bulk carrier is en route from Singapore to Ambarli Turkey, Marmara sea, with cargo of steel.

New FleetMon Vessel Safety Risk Reports Available: https://www.fleetmon.com/services/vessel-risk-rating/

 

SOURCE READ THE FULL ARTICLE

https://www.fleetmon.com/maritime-news/2021/34153/bulk-carrier-disabled-dardanelles/


UPDATE Jun 11 1400 UTC: Still aground, refloating is planned to take place at night Jun 11 with high tide, obviously. The ship is loaded with manure. No hull breaches, no leaks reported. Fairway traffic is not affected.
Jun 11 0330 UTC: General cargo ship RIX EMERALD aground in Randers Fjord Denmark since around 1400 UTC Jun 10. Looks like she strayed off fairway. She’s en route from Rostock to Randers. In the same position as of 0340 UTC Jun 11.

New FleetMon Vessel Safety Risk Reports Available: https://www.fleetmon.com/services/vessel-risk-rating/

 

https://www.fleetmon.com/maritime-news/2021/34149/freighter-aground-denmark/


Company DETAILS

SHIP IP LTD
VAT:BG 202572176
Rakovski STR.145
Sofia,
Bulgaria
Phone ( +359) 24929284
E-mail: sales(at)shipip.com

ISO 9001:2015 CERTIFIED