Some observations of overzealous inspector worth sharing!!!!
recently one of tankers of our fleet underwent SIRE vetting and following observations were noted:
1. VIQ 5.48
IMO sign launching instructions not sighted near the life raft/ life boat, however written instructions (in English) are posted.
Vessel complies with SOLAS III/9.2 (including IMO symbols as necessary). This fact was brought to his notice by Master but in vain.
He wants every operating step in pictorial form!!!!!
2. VIQ 11.30
Not all insulation mats are marked with the protective voltage.
Prototype certificate of Rubber mats was shown to the inspector by Master but again of no use. He wants to see approved voltage stamped on each rubber mat near switchboard.
The implications of such observations is that any oil major interested in hiring the tanker will look into operator’s remarks and it is again up to his prudence how he reads those remarks. This besides fleet’s KPI going for a toss!!
Now, my question to all is…
How can such inspectors be corrected when either they are hell bent upon noting observations or their parent company does not see any reason in evidences produced by us? Or Am I being too unreasonable?
3 Comments
Submit a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Welcome to the world of human prejudice. This practice was much more widespread in the earlier days of vetting. My humble suggestion is to “clarify” the same with the oil major and maybe highlighted to SIRE. You are rightly worried about the KPI but if you look into the details, the OM is really not worried and they have factored such comments. These comments are indeed a pain but most of the OMs have sensible guys who ignore these comments. Rather they look for the confidential report submitted by the inspector that may hamper the vessels chances. Treating them like demigods by the staff will help a bit, if the vessel is tip-top otherwise.
Agree with DBhaumik. As far as the major oil companies are concerned stupid observations don’t really matter. They usually have sensible people looking at these who are well aware of the occassional shortcomings of inspectors. When you are unduly alarmed by the conduct or competence of an inspector, feel free to report it to the oil company or OCIMF.
I feel the important thing here is that your responses need to be of good quality. It is ok to disagree with inspector in your response, giving sensible reasoning, if you are confident. However a poor response to a stupid observation can certainly make things unnecessarily worse.
Beware of 5 observations on chapter 5 (on a single SIRE report) as BP software rejects this before it gets to a “human”!
The observations you have pointed out look more like what your company’s internal auditor would have brought up anyways. Pictoral instructions are excellent for new joiners. With regards to voltage none of us would probably throw out the existing rubber mats. However when they are renewed in the future the voltage stamp is a good idea. We now have SWLs marked on everything, voltages are a natural progression I feel.
With regards to DBhaumik’s comment about confidential reports, is it commonplace with most companies? I know a couple of them do that. My understanding was most don’t. I might be wrong…
11.30 Matts are only required in front of switchboards, and not required under required under each starter box.
The matting in front of starter panels and electrical junction panels are not necessary and should be considered as tripping hazards.