New Code of Safe Working Practices for Merchant Seafarers aamemded 2019

Commenti disabilitati su New Code of Safe Working Practices for Merchant Seafarers aamemded 2019

NEW amended Code of Safe Working Practices for Merchant Seafarers 2019

Download the PDF.

 

 

Code_of_safe_working_practices_for_merchant_seafarers_COSWP_2019

Quali sono le navi più impegnative da manovrare?

Commenti disabilitati su Quali sono le navi più impegnative da manovrare?

Articolo tratto da STAND BY ENGINE

Quali sono le navi più impegnative da manovrare?

  • Quali sono le navi più impegnative da manovrare?

    ×

    PASSANDO IL MOUSE SOPRA LE PAROLE TRATTEGGIATE IN NERO, APPARE UNA FINESTRA A TENDINA CHE NE SPIEGA IL SIGNIFICATO.

    Questa è una delle domande che mi sono sentito rivolgere più spesso, e la risposta non è né semplice né scontata.

    Sono troppi i fattori che influenzano una statistica di questo tipo e vanno da quelli psicologici a quelli pratici.

    In più di vent’anni di pilotaggio mi è capitato di manovrare una grande varietà di navi, pontoni, scafi particolari (vedi Concordia), manovre sperimentali, velieri, yachts, ecc., in situazioni estremamente diverse. 

    Tra le variabili più frequenti mi vengono in mente le condizioni meteomarine, i pescaggi, le superfici veliche, gli assetti, i tipi di timone e di propulsori, le avarie, gli equipaggi affidabili e quelli meno, ecc.

    Anche le valutazioni soggettive influiscono notevolmente e variano con l’esperienza. Ricordo, per esempio, che i primi anni di pilotaggio arrivavano a Genova due navi Ro-Ro tunisine nuovissime e dalle ottime prestazioni: il Salammbo 7 e l’Ulysse. Nonostante occupassero onorevolmente i primi posti nella lista delle navi affidabili, per me erano sempre “vapori” da manovrare con grande attenzione. Il motivo: prima di diventare pilota navigavo sulle petroliere, le cui caratteristiche erano completamente diverse. Trovarmi su di un Ponte prodiero cambiava i parametri di evoluzione e le differenze nelle proporzioni tra  masse e propulsori erano abissali. Intendo dire, che nelle prime esperienze da pilota un peso non trascurabile è dato dalla familiarità che si ha con i mezzi da manovrare.

    Ponte di Comando della nave "Salammbo 7"

    Ponte di Comando della nave “Salammbo 7”

    Vent’anni fa i thrusters erano optional poco diffusi. Ricordo un pilota, ora in pensione, che gli ultimi anni di navigazione, prima di diventare pilota, li aveva trascorsi a bordo delle bettoline per il bunker; risultato: era bravissimo nella manovra delle navi di piccole dimensioni, e un mago in quelle dove un buon uso delle ancore permetteva acrobazie piuttosto complesse. 

    Bettolina del bunker

    Bettolina del bunker

    E così, almeno per i primi tempi, ognuno ha preferenze che influenzano il metro di giudizio nella scala delle difficoltà di una manovra rispetto a un’altra.

    Con il tempo la competenza e l’abilità si livellano; l’esperienza aiuta a  riempire la personale cassetta degli attrezzi di strumenti che diventano utili in tutte le occasioni.

    A questo punto entrano in campo i fattori caratteriali. 

    Tutti, prima o poi, raggiungono un livello che permette di operare in una ben definita zona di comfort. 

    Questo non vuol dire manovrare bene, significa semplicemente aver capito i propri limiti e aver trovato un equilibrio – più o meno forzato – che permette di portare le navi in banchina. Ovviamente c’è chi eccede nelle precauzioni, chi trova un limite più basso degli altri nelle differenti condizioni meteomarine e chi opera con tempi più lunghi.

    È normale, fa parte del percorso di formazione. Il fatto diventa negativo quando ci si arresta al traguardo raggiunto, quando si ripetono le stesse manovre senza cercare di  migliorare, quando ci si trova ad applicare sempre la stessa procedura senza adeguare il metro di valutazione al progredire dell’esperienza. 

    Entrata in canale con vento forte

    Entrata in canale con vento forte

    Mi rendo conto che, per riuscire a spiegarmi bene, devo precisare alcune cose:

    • La teoria studiata sui libri, le manovre provate sui simulatori e i corsi in generale, sono utilissimi per costruire le basi da cui fare decollare in seguito la professionalità spinta dalla pratica e dall’esperienza.
    • Le “procedure“, in generale, servono a mitigare i rischi che in questo lavoro non possono essere esclusi, ma devono essere viste come “linee guida”, “suggerimenti operativi” da adattare alle circostanze. Questo perché, come dicevo prima, le situazioni possibili sono infinite e imbrigliarsi in troppe regole può aiutare a scaricare parte delle responsabilità da in lato (se vogliamo dare un peso all’accezione negativa del pensiero burocratico), ma dall’altro condiziona il metro valutativo sulle variabili non previste.
    • Uscire dalla “zona di comfort” non deve esser visto come un azzardo, ma piuttosto il passaggio al paragrafo successivo nel testo della preparazione personale.
    • Una delle qualità fondamentali, richiesta a un buon pilota, è la capacità di giudicare le situazioni senza lasciarsi condizionare dalle pressioni esterne(commerciali, di traffico, personali, ecc.): se una cosa la si può fare, adottando tutti gli accorgimenti del caso, la si fa, altrimenti no. Facile a dirsi, difficile a farsi. Quando si lavora vicino al limite, il confine tra “il possibile” e “il rischioso” è veramente labile e la valutazione strettamente personale. Anche in questo caso il tempo e l’esperienza diventano gli occhiali che servono a mettere a fuoco un concetto inizialmente sbiadito.
    Manovra in spazi ristretti

    Manovra in spazi ristretti

    Bene! Ritengo di aver tracciato in maniera efficace i confini entro i quali mi muoverò per rispondere alla domanda iniziale.

    Dando quindi per scontata una sufficiente esperienza e preparazione, una maturità di giudizio  consapevole e lasciando da parte le variabili eccezionali, elencherò le difficoltà principali per tipologia di nave.

    • Navi di piccole dimensioni, senza bow thruster e ad avviamenti, ormai ce ne sono poche. Mi viene da dire “peccato”: erano davvero un’ottima palestra di manovra! Il fatto di avere i problemi ben focalizzati e le risorse ridotte al minimo, permette di concentrarsi sulla gestione di poche cose per volta. Mi spiego meglio. Per “problemi focalizzati”, intendo carenze talmente evidenti da non rivelarsi, al momento meno opportuno, come insidie nascoste, e quindi prevedibili in quanto dichiarate. Vi racconto un episodio di tanti anni fa per trasferire il concetto astratto alla pratica. 

    “Ero allievo pilota da circa sei mesi e accompagnavo alla partenza di una piccola Ro-Ro il Comandante Veglio. La nave, dotata di bow thruster e due eliche outwards a passo variabile, era ormeggiata sulle ancore con la poppa in banchina (andana). 

    Un vento di media intensità, circa 15/18 nodi, scivolava da poppa verso prora, rendendo frizzante l’aria mattutina di quella giornata di marzo. 

    Quel giorno, forte della mia inesperienza, ho inanellato una serie di errori incredibile. 

    Sulla lavagna dove venivano segnati i lavori, posta nella sala operativa, erano segnate due manovre a poca distanza l’una dall’altra: l’arrivo di una nave di merce varia di media grandezza e la partenza di una Ro-Ro ormeggiata di punta. Il Comandante Veglio mi chiese di andare con lui alla partenza ed io, dopo un breve confronto, acconsentii riluttante. 

    Pensavo fosse più interessante la manovra d’arrivo. 

    Mi convinse dicendomi che, seppure stretti con i tempi, probabilmente sarei riuscito a fare sia l’una che l’altra.

    Nella mia testa la partenza della Ro-Ro era meno interessante: sarebbe bastato salpare le ancore, fare un po’ di coppia con le macchine, mettere il bow thruster a sinistra e voilá, il gioco era fatto. Con questa idea in testa affrontai la manovra di disormeggio… e poi dovevo fare presto, se volevo finire in tempo per l’arrivo della “merce varia”.

    Feci mollare tutti i cavi di poppa e salpare le ancore. Arrivate a tre lunghezze in acqua feci fermare il salpa ancore di sinistra. 

    Quasi subito il vento, che nella prima fase sembrava non avere alcuna influenza, cominciò a farsi sentire, costringendomi a compensare utilizzando le macchine e il timone. Per farla breve, mi trovai, una volta salpate le ancore, con la nave troppo vicina alla banchina di dritta. Per riuscire a mantenere il controllo aumentai la velocità, con il risultato che mi trovai ad affrontare l’accostata a sinistra per entrare in canale troppo abbrivato, troppo vicino alla banchina di dritta (e quindi senza il giro libero per accostare) e con il vento che mi spingeva verso la diga… Intervenne il Comandante Veglio, che mi tolse la manovra dalle mani e, non senza difficoltà, rimediò a una situazione che – errore dopo errore – avevo portato a un livello di criticità molto alto.

    Manovra partenza nave in andana

    Manovra partenza nave in andana

    Questo racconto vuole introdurre un concetto che ho vissuto e che ho riscontrato successivamente tra gli allievi entrati dopo di me:

    • L’inesperienza porta a riconoscere, valutare e ad affrontare i problemi uno per volta, man a mano che si presentano.

    Cosa c’è di sbagliato in questo? A volte la soluzione migliore per il primo problema rende più complessa la risoluzione di quello successivo, scatenando una serie di reazioni che possono portare al disastro.

    L’atteggiamento giusto è quello di individuare il “nocciolo”, ovvero il punto più delicato della manovra, e costruire la strategia in funzione di quello.

    Nel caso della storia che vi ho raccontato, mi sarei dovuto focalizzare sulla necessità di affrontare l’entrata in canale sufficientemente sopravventato e con un’andatura tale da permettermi di conservare una riserva di macchina sufficiente a vincere le forze contrastanti.

    Termino qui la prima parte dell’articolo. Nella seconda, che pubblicherò a breve, riporterò considerazioni e racconti sulle altre tipologie di navi. A presto.

    6 Comments

    1. stelvio chalvien 25 Novembre 2019 al 11:21 – Rispondi

      molto interessante, dimostra che l’esperienza è la prima dote per una buona manovra

      • John Gatti 25 Novembre 2019 al 11:30 – Rispondi

        Grazie per il commento.
        L’esperienza effettivamente ha un peso importante. E’ anche vero che ci sono persone più portate di altre e che i primi anni, generalmente, si ha un’attenzione che il tempo e l’abitudine tendono a offuscare. Comunque, sicuramente non ci si sbaglia a dare molta importanza alle conoscenze maturate sul campo.

    2. Salvatore Muroni 26 Novembre 2019 al 20:18 – Rispondi

      Bellissimo articolo, credo che le manovre piu difficili siano quelle preparate e valutate male. La fretta e la pressione commerciale giocano sempre brutti scherzi.

      • John Gatti 26 Novembre 2019 al 21:01 – Rispondi

        Grazie!
        La cattiva valutazione e l’improvvisazione sono senz’altro due elementi che concorrono pesantemente ad elevare l’asticella delle difficoltà.

        • Fausto Mazza 16 Dicembre 2019 al 9:44 – Rispondi

          John e’ sempre un piacere leggerti. Considerazioni sempre condivisibilissime.

    Scrivi un commento

    Comment

    Iscrivimi alla newsletter!

    Questo sito usa Akismet per ridurre lo spam. Scopri come i tuoi dati vengono elaborati.

Iscriviti – non perdere nuovi contenuti!

This website stores cookies on your computer. These cookies are used to provide a more personalized experience and to track your whereabouts around our website in compliance with the European General Data Protection Regulation. If you decide to to opt-out of any future tracking, a cookie will be setup in your browser to remember this choice for one year.

Accept or Deny

 

Nero ribaltato nei bacini richiesta danni

Commenti disabilitati su Nero ribaltato nei bacini richiesta danni

dal quitidiano la Repubblica di Genova

Yacht ribaltato nei bacini

Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM)

Commenti disabilitati su Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM)

Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM)
Dear Captains,
The Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM) is a list that identifies the hazardous materials that are contained in a ship’s structure or equipment, their location and approximate quantities. It is mandatory for all vessels of 500 GT and over to keep an IHM in accordance with the EU Ship Recycling Regulation No 1257/2013 (EU SRR and the Hong Kong Convention.
Vessels of 500 GT and over are required to carry an IHM with a Statement of Compliance:
􏰀 New-build EU flagged vessels – when build contract is signed after 31 December 2018
􏰀 Existing EU flagged vessels – by 31 December 2020
􏰀 Non-EU flagged vessels calling at EU ports – by 31 December 2020
The IHM consists of three parts:
Part I: Materials contained in ship structure or equipment. Part I of the IHM shall be developed for new and existing ships.
Parts II and III: Operationally generated wastes and stores. These parts shall be developed prior to recycling of the ship.
The IHM needs to be ship-specific and prepared by a qualified hazmat expert (Class approved company). The steps of IHM preparation are as follows:
1. Collection of required information and documents – Ship/Fraser
2. Preparation of Visual Ship Check Plan (VSCP) – Hazmat expert
3. Onboard survey, collection of samples and submission to lab – Hazmat expert
4. Analysis of samples – Accredited laboratory
5. Preparation of IHM report based on lab results – Hazmat expert
6. Verification and issuance of SOC / IC IHM – Class Society or RO
Due to the number of vessels affected by this regulation, it is strongly recommended for existing vessels to start communications with a certified IHM provider to ensure compliance by 31 December 2020. Experience is indicating the process from contracting an IHM provider to obtaining the Class Statement of Compliance takes approximately 2-3 months.

Recycling of ship

Commenti disabilitati su Recycling of ship

Recycling of ships


Scarica la normativa EU

EEC Regolamento sul Riciclaggio selle navi

​​​The development of the Hong Kong Convention

The Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009 (the Hong Kong Convention), was adopted at a diplomatic conference held in Hong Kong, China, from 11 to 15 May 2009, which was attended by delegates from 63 countries.

The Convention is aimed at ensuring that ships, when being recycled after reaching the end of their operational lives, do not pose any unnecessary risks to human health, safety and to the environment.

The Hong Kong Convention intends to address all the issues around ship recycling, including the fact that ships sold for scrapping may contain environmentally hazardous substances such as asbestos, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, ozone-depleting substances and others. It also addresses concerns raised about the working and environmental conditions at many of the world’s ship recycling locations.

The text of the Hong Kong Convention was developed over three and a half years, with input from IMO Member States and relevant non-governmental organizations, and in co-operation with the International Labour Organization and the Parties to the Basel Convention.

Regulations in the new Convention cover: the design, construction, operation and preparation of ships so as to facilitate safe and environmentally sound recycling without compromising the safety and operational efficiency of ships; the operation of ship recycling facilities in a safe and environmentally sound manner; and the establishment of an appropriate enforcement mechanism for ship recycling, incorporating certification and reporting requirements.

Upon entry into force of the Hong Kong Convention, ships to be sent for recycling will be required to carry an inventory of hazardous materials, which will be specific to each ship. An appendix to the Convention provides a list of hazardous materials the installation or use of which is prohibited or restricted in shipyards, ship repair yards, and ships of Parties to the Convention. Ships will be required to have an initial survey to verify the inventory of hazardous materials, additional surveys during the life of the ship, and a final survey prior to recycling.

 

Ship recycling yards will be required to provide a “Ship Recycling Plan”, specifying the manner in which each ship will be recycled, depending on its particulars and its inventory. Parties will be required to take effective measures to ensure that ship recycling facilities under their jurisdiction comply with the Convention.

The following guidelines have been developed and adopted to assist States in the early implementation of the Convention’s technical standards:

2011 Guidelines for the Development of the Ship Recycling Plan, adopted by resolution MEPC.196(62);
2012 Guidelines for Safe and Environmentally Sound Ship Recycling, adopted by resolution MEPC.210(63);
2012 Guidelines for the Authorization of Ship Recycling Facilities, adopted by resolution MEPC.211(63); and
2015 Guidelines for the development of the Inventory of the Hazardous Materials, adopted by resolution MEPC.269(68).

Also two further guidelines have been developed and adopted to assist States in the implementation of the Convention after it enters into force:

 

​2012 Guidelines for the survey and certification of ships under the Hong Kong Convention, adopted by resolution MEPC.222(64); and
2012 Guidelines for the inspection of ships under the Hong Kong Convention, adopted by resolution MEPC.223(64).

Entry into force criteria

The Convention is open for accession by any State. It will enter into force
24 months after the date on which 15 States, representing 40 per cent of world merchant shipping by gross tonnage, have either signed it without reservation as to ratification, acceptance or approval or have deposited instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Secretary-General. Furthermore, the combined maximum annual ship recycling volume of those States must, during the preceding 10 years, constitute not less than 3 per cent of their combined merchant shipping tonnage.  For more detailed information please refer to resolution MEPC.178(59) on the calculation of the recycling capacity for meeting the entry-into-force conditions of the Hong Kong Convention and document MEPC 64/INF.2/Rev.1​ on the same topic.

 

Historic background

IMO’s role in the recycling of ships, the terminology used to refer to ship scrapping, was first raised at the 44th MEPC session in March 2000 following which a correspondence group was established to research this issue and provide information about current ship recycling practices and suggestions on the role of IMO.

Guidelines were developed by the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) and finalized at the MEPC 49th session in July 2003. These guidelines were adopted as the: Guidelines on Ship Recycling by the 23rd Assembly in November-December 2003 by resolution A.962(23) and were subsequently amended by resolution A.980(24).

Resolution A.962(23) IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling give advice to all stakeholders in the recycling process, including administrations of ship building and maritime equipment supplying countries, flag, port and recycling States, as well as intergovernmental organizations and commercial bodies such as shipowners, ship builders, repairers and recycling yards.

The guidelines noted that, in the process of recycling ships, virtually nothing goes to waste. The materials and equipment are almost entirely reused. Steel is reprocessed to become, for instance, reinforcing rods for use in the construction industry or as corner castings and hinges for containers. Ships’ generators are reused ashore. Batteries find their way into the local economy. Hydrocarbons on board become reclaimed oil products to be used as fuel in rolling mills or brick kilns. Light fittings find further use on land. Furthermore, new steel production from recycled steel requires only one third of the energy used for steel production from raw materials. Recycling thus makes a positive contribution to the global conservation of energy and resources and, in the process, employs a large, if predominantly unskilled, workforce. Properly handled, ship recycling is, without question, a “green” industry. However, the guidelines also recognized that, although the principle of ship recycling may be sound, the working practices and environmental standards in the yards often leave much to be desired. While ultimate responsibility for conditions in the yards has to lie with the countries in which they are situated, other stakeholders must be encouraged to contribute towards minimising potential problems in the yards.

The Guidelines on Ship Recycling also introduced the concept of a “Green Passport” for ships. It was envisaged that this document, containing an inventory of all materials used in the construction of a ship that are potentially hazardous to human health or the environment, would accompany the ship throughout its working life. Produced by the shipyard at the construction stage and passed to the purchaser of the vessel, the document would be in a format that would enable any subsequent changes in materials or equipment to be recorded. Successive owners of the ship would maintain the accuracy of the Green Passport and incorporate into it all relevant design and equipment changes, with the final owner delivering it, with the vessel, to the recycling yard.

Subsequently, at its 53rd session in July 2005, the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) agreed that the IMO should develop, as a high priority, a new instrument on recycling of ships with a view to providing legally binding and globally applicable ship recycling regulations for international shipping and for recycling facilities. MEPC 53 also agreed that the new IMO instrument on ship recycling should include regulations for the design, construction, operation and preparation of ships so as to facilitate safe and environmentally sound recycling, without compromising the safety and operational efficiency of ships; the operation of ship recycling facilities in a safe and environmentally sound manner; and the establishment of an appropriate enforcement mechanism for ship recycling (certification/reporting requirements). MEPC 53 further agreed that the above-mentioned instrument should be completed in time for its consideration and adoption in the biennium 2008-2009.

The IMO Assembly in November-December 2005 subsequently agreed that IMO should develop a new legally-binding instrument on ship recycling. Assembly resolution A.981(24) New legally-binding instrument on Ship Recycling requested the Marine Environment Protection Committee to develop a new instrument that would provide regulations for:

the design, construction, operation and preparation of ships so as to  facilitate safe and environmentally sound recycling, without compromising the safety and operational efficiency of ships;
the operation of ship recycling facilities in a safe and environmentally sound manner; and
the establishment of an appropriate enforcement mechanism for ship recycling, incorporating certification and reporting requirements.

 

The resolution referred to the urgent need for IMO to contribute to the development of an effective solution to the issue of ship recycling, which will minimize, in the most effective, efficient and sustainable way, the environmental, occupational health and safety risks related to ship recycling, taking into account the particular characteristics of world maritime transport and the need for securing the smooth withdrawal of ships that have reached the end of their operating lives.

La giornata del Mare.

Commenti disabilitati su La giornata del Mare.

Modalità’ rinnovo ECDIS

Commenti disabilitati su Modalità’ rinnovo ECDIS

lettera circolare modalità rinnovo attestati ECDIS prot

 

In allegato potete scaricare l’ultima circolare per il rinnovo del certificato del corso Ecdis , anche se fino ad una settimana fa in alcune capitanerie, la semplice dichiarazione del comandante o della società’ non erano sufficienti a rinnovare il corso Ecdis.

Attenzione però alle autocertificazioni, in quanto possono essere oggetto di controlli e causa di conseguenze anche serie in caso di non rispondenza alla realtà!

Certificato marittimi, Mit contro il Tar / IL CASOGenova – Il ministero teme di tornare nel mirino Emsa per inadempienza delle convenzioni internazionali.

2 commenti

 

Genova – Il ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti e la Capitaneria di porto di Genova difenderanno di fronte al Consiglio di Stato il decreto ministeriale 1/3/2016, bestia nera di molti marittimi italiani. Il d.m., assieme a quella che viene considerata a torto o a ragione la sua ideatrice, la funzionaria del Mit Stefania Moltoni, sono stati fra i principali bersagli della manifestazione che il 15 novembre 2016 portò in piazza a Roma circa duecento marittimi italiani, evento raro per il settore.

L’8 maggio 2018 una sentenza del Tar Liguria ha dato indirettamente ragione a quei marittimi, stabilendo che l’interpretazione dell’articolo 7 del decreto data dalla Capitaneria di porto di Genova (che in realtà è quella data dallo stesso ministero che lo ha emanato) era errata. La sentenza del Tar è arrivata su ricorso di un comandante, difeso dagli avvocati Alfredo Medina e Silvia D’Arrigo, a cui la Capitaneria genovese aveva rigettato la richiesta di rinnovo del certificato di competenza, necessario per navigare e quindi per lavorare. Il giudice amministrativo genovese ha annullato il rigetto e consentito al comandante di ottenere un certificato provvisorio che gli consente di lavorare.

Di fronte a questa decisione, una contromossa del Mit era attesa, visto che su questo decreto gioca gran parte della propria credibilità l’attuale dirigenza ministeriale della Divisione per il personale della navigazione marittima e interna. E in effetti a fine 2018 è stato dato mandato all’Avvocatura dello Stato perché presentasse ai giudici di Palazzo Spada il ricorso contro la sentenza del Tar.

«L’appello – nota Medina – è stato notificato senza presentare nuovi argomenti rispetto al Tar». No comment sulla vicenda arriva dalla Capitaneria di porto di Genova. La richiesta all’Avvocatura di Stato di presentare ricorso è per altro partita dal ministero delle Infrastrutture, direttamente da Roma. Secondo fonti vicine al dossier, a Roma la sentenza del Tar è ritenuta «non accettabile». Il Mit teme infatti che la bocciatura del decreto ministeriale possa riportare l’Italia in una condizione di inadempienza rispetto alle norme internazionali.

In passato l’Emsa, l’Agenzia europea per la sicurezza marittima, aveva mosso rilievi all’Italia per la mancanza di una normativa nazionale che accogliesse le ultime convenzioni internazionali in tema di titoli professionali marittimi. Secondo il Mit, l’Emsa avrebbe accettato il d.m. del 2016 come soluzione dei rilievi che erano stati mossi. La sentenza del Tar che boccia l’articolo 7 di quel decreto, che riguarda i requisiti richiesti dall’Italia per ottenere il rinnovo del certificato, potrebbe quindi spingere l’Agenzia europea a riaprire il caso.

La sentenza del Tar interviene su un punto specifico del decreto, su cui si basa il rigetto della Capitaneria: se cioè il requisito di 30 mesi di attività alternativa alla navigazione mercantile da svolgere nel corso di 5 anni debba essere inteso o meno in senso continuativo. Ma il punto dolente che lamentano i marittimi è che in Italia, a differenza di altri paesi, se i requisiti non vengono rispettati occorre ripetere l’esame, con annessi corsi obbligatori del costo di alcune migliaia di euro. E’ quanto viene ripetuto ancora («senza mostrare consapevolezza di quanto incida questo sui marittimi», nota Medina) nell’appello al Consiglio di Stato: «Il decreto ministeriale… consente il rinnovo del certificato anche nel caso in cui il lavoratore non abbia effettuato alcun periodo di imbarco, superando l’apposito esame per la dimostrazione del mantenimento delle competenze». All’estero, in caso di mancanza dei requisiti, è sufficiente seguire corsi di riallineamento che non obbligano il marittimo a ricominciare da zero la propria formazione.

Nella sua pronuncia, il giudice amministrativo aveva scritto che «il complesso quadro normativo richiamato induce a ritenere che il periodo di navigazione di 30 mesi richiesto dal decreto ministeriale non vada inteso in senso continuativo, seppur con specifico ed esclusivo riferimento ai periodi di servizio svolti su navi da diporto». E aggiungeva che «non deve indurre in errore la circostanza che il codice Stcw parli di “competenza professionale continua”» e notava inoltre che «costituisce fatto notorio che la navigazione su tale tipologia di imbarcazioni si caratterizza per una frequente variabilità dell’impiego» il che «renderebbe pressoché impossibile, o comunque molto complesso, lo svolgimento del servizio su tale tipo di imbarcazione». Il Mit contesta queste posizioni sostenendo fra l’altro che «la contrattazione collettiva di comparto… contempla la possibilità di imbarco a tempo indeterminato».

International regulations and guidelines for maritime spatial planning related to safe distances to multiple offshore structures (e.g. wind farms)

Commenti disabilitati su International regulations and guidelines for maritime spatial planning related to safe distances to multiple offshore structures (e.g. wind farms)

International regulations and guidelines for maritime spatial planning related to safe distances to multiple offshore structures (e.g. wind farms)

Introduction

This is a summary of the most important international regulations that are decisive for the minimum distance from the border of a route to an area with multiple objects, e.g. wind turbines, which can be navigated by vessels.

This document is not applicable to areas with multiple objects in shallow waters, where traffic inside such area is not possible.

It is regarded as a minimum distance as it is the minimum space needed by vessels to comply with collision regulations, and is as follows:

  • Starboard side of any route: 0,3 nM + 6 ship lengths + 500 meter
  • Portside of any route: 6 ship lengths + 500 meter
    The reasons for these minimum distances and other arguments are discussed in the document.This document has been provided by the Shipping Advisory Board Northsea. Comments are welcome.

    Contact person: brj.scherpenzeel@portofrotterdam.comPoints of attention when reading this document:

    1) Oneshouldconsiderthat80%ofalldisastersatseaarecausedbyhumanerror.Itis therefore realistic to keep certain margins when considering a safe distance.

    2) Whentheseprovisionsandregulationsweredesigned,multiplestructuressuchaswind farms did not exist yet. However, also the existing provisions and regulations provide sufficient guidance to argue a safe distance to such objects. Such a paragraph with guidelines related to multiple objects should be added to the General Provisions on Ships’Routeing in the near future.

    The following Regulations and Guidelines have been established internationally:

    1. General Provisions on Ships’ Routeing of International Marine Organization (GPSR)
    2. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
    3. International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended: (COLREG)

    The relevant Regulations and Guidelines will be discussed, and the relation with the minimum distance to areas with multiple objects explained.

page1image1901010928

1

GPSR 1.1

The purpose of ships’ routeing is to improve the safety of navigation in converging areas and in areas where the density of traffic is great or where freedom of movement of shipping is inhibited by restricted sea room, the existence of obstructions to navigation, limited depths or unfavorable meteorological conditions.

To demonstrate that the routeing measure improves safety, a Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) is recommended. This FSA can provide arguments for selecting a certain route and is based on a probabilistic risk assessment.

The Captain will make his own risk assessment when passing structures along this route, and will keep a certain distance, depending on the size of the vessel, status of the main engine, weather conditions, traffic, so he/she can act according the Colregs. This risk assessment is deterministic, as he/she wants 0 incidents. If all Captains feel that the routeing measure takes the vessel too close to multiple structures, they will all shift to one side of the routeing measure, causing the density of shipping to increase at one side – which is not in line with the starting point of GPSR: to improve safety of navigation.

Therefore demonstrating that a new routeing measure improves safety of navigation can be done by means of FSA. However, determining the safe distance to structures along that route should be done via a deterministic approach, using the rules and regulations which a Captain should follow.

2

GPSR 6.4
Course alterations along a route should be as few as possible and should be avoided in the approaches to convergence areas and route junctions or where crossing traffic may be expected to be heavy.
Keeping in mind that a Captain keeps a safe distance to certain structures, again the structures should not be positioned in such a way that certain vessels will change course in order to reach this safe distance.

GPSR 6.8
Traffic separation schemes shall be designed so as to enable ships using them to fully comply at all times with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended.
De safe distances to structures should be determined in such a way that a vessel can act according to the Colregs At ALL TIMES – also when sailing on the border of a routeing measure.

GPSR 6.10 Traffic lanes should be designed to make optimum use of available depths of water and the safe navigable areas, taking into account the maximum depth of water attainable along the length of the route. The width of lanes should take account of the traffic density, the general usage of the area and the sea-room available.

It is not easy to determine a safe width of a routeing measure. A guideline that has proofed to be accurate, based on AIS study by Maritime Institute Netherlands (MARIN):

  • Number of vessels: based on AIS study, keeping in mind the future development during the lifespan of the structures
  • Maximum size of vessels: same
  • Number of vessels taking over:􏰀 < 4400 vessels per year: 2 vessels side to side
    􏰀 >4400 vessels and < 18000 vessels: 3 vessels side to side􏰀 >18000 vessels: 4 vessels side to side
  • Room per vessel: 2 ship lengthsExample: a traffic lane which accommodates 18000 vessels per year with a maximum size of 400 meters should be at least 3200 meter wide. This matches with most of the present traffic lanes (e.g. approach Rotterdam, TSS Maas West)

3

Unclos Article 60

1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of:

(a) artificial islands;

(b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes;

(c) installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.

4. The coastal State may, where necessary, establish reasonable safety zones around such artificial islands, installations and structures in which it may take appropriate measures to ensure the safety both of navigation and of the artificial islands, installations and structures.

5. The breadth of the safety zones shall be determined by the coastal State, taking into account applicable international standards. Such zones shall be designed to ensure that they are reasonably related to the nature and function of the artificial islands, installations or structures, and shall not exceed a distance of 500 meters around them, measured from each point of their outer edge, except as authorized by generally accepted international standards or as recommended by the competent international organization. Due notice shall be given of the extent of safety zones.

6. All ships must respect these safety zones and shall comply with generally accepted international standards regarding navigation in the vicinity of artificial islands, installations, structures and safety zones.

7. Artificial islands, installations and structures and the safety zones around them may not be established where interference may be caused to the use of recognized sea lanes essential to international navigation

Paragraph 6: The 500 meter zone is for protection of the structure and is not meant as a safe distance for safe maneuvering according the Colregs.

Paragraph 7: Interference means e.g. limited ability to comply with the Colregs, The required room is not mentioned in the Colregs, however with the help of guidelines for shipbuilding regarding maximum room for full round turns there are arguments for a minimum distance.

4

COLREG 2a) and b)
Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or the of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case
In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of
the vessels involved, which may make a departure from the Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.
The Captain is held responsible for having mitigating measures in place for unforeseen conditions such as a Not Under Command situation. So sailing very close to islands or multiple structures is not according ordinary practice of seamen.
A study regarding Not Under Command situations shows that 90% of the vessels drift for one hour (AIS tracks in combination with Dutch Coast guard reports) – resulting in a drifting distance of 1,7 nautical Mile. This distance is a result of local conditions, and per area this distance should be evaluated.

COLREG 7c)
Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar information.
Because targets of vessels within an area with multiple structures tend to swap to the structures, a CPA is hard to get. Only when the vessel departs this areas, the CPA can be determined. The time needed to identify and plot the vessel has been determined to be 6 minutes. If a service vessel exits the wind farm with a speed of e.g. 10 knots, crossing the course line of a passing vessel, the minimum distance needed to get a reliable CPA is 1,0 nautical Mile.
AIS information is available, but a CPA based on AIS information should not be used to determine the risk for collision as the speed input is based on GPS and not on water track.
Next to the effect of swapping targets, wind farms cause radar interference. The safe distance to avoid interference has been determined by deep sea pilots to be 0,8 nautical miles.

COLREG 15
When two power driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.

COLREG 8
Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance. The effectiveness of the action shall be carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear
If the stand on vessel does not act according the Colregs, the give way vessel’s last resort is a
full round turn over starboard.
The required room is:

1) Startoftheroundturn.Aroundturnisnotstartedrightaway.Normallyonefirstdeviates course, while observing the other vessel. This requires time. In the meantime one deviates from the original track. The distance is minimum 0,3 nM

5

2) The round turn itself is determined as follows:

  • Para. 5.3.1: Turning ability: The advance should not exceed 4.5 ship lengths (L) and thetactical diameter should not exceed 5 ship lengths in the turning circle manoeuvre.
  • Para. 1.2.3.5: Turning ability: Turning ability is the measure of the ability to turn the shipusing hard-over rudder.’ (zie resp. Resolutie MSC.137 (76) en MSC/Circ.1053).
    The before mentioned requirement is under controlled conditions during sea trials. It is reasonable to take an extra ships length to compensate for the fact that the Officer On Duty is not fully prepare for this maneuver. Therefore the diameter of the round turn has been determined to be 6 ship’s lengths.

3) The round turn should not bring the vessel closer than the 500 meter distance safety zone.

6

A round turn will also be made over port side, in case e.g. the starboard aft quarter is blocked due to an overtaking vessel. However, than the vessel will not first deviate to port, but start a round turn right away:

Points of attention:
1) IthappensquiteoftenthataftermakingaroundturnaNotUnderCommandsituation

occurs, due to mechanical problems (e.g. low low level alarm on oil levels etc.)
2) OnmanyvesselstheOfficerOnDutywillhesitatetousehardrudderatonce.Especially

on passenger ships and container vessels one will be very cautious before starting such a

turn as it can result in a lot of damage to passengers, crew and cargo. 3) RoundturnsarealsomadeincaseofaManOverBoardsituation.

7

COLREG 10 h), I0, j)
A vessel not using a Traffic Separation Scheme shall avoid it by as wide a margin as is practicable.
A vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any vessel following a traffic lane.
A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic lane.

Fishing vessels and pleasure craft normally use the area next to the traffic lane. However, the picture below shows that there is little room left for e.g. sailing vessels that need to beat up against the wind.

8

Anchor areas.
There are no regulations that relate to anchorages.Safe anchorages should provide sufficient room to:

a) Maneuverswhentheanchorisdragging

b) Manoeuvretoapproachtheanchorage
The space to allow a vessel to start her engines and manoeuvre when an anchor is dragging has been found to be 1,7 nautical Mile to the safety zone of a multiple structures. This is the result of a safety study for an off shore platform.
The same distance has been found to be sufficient to approach that anchorage for all vessels making use of that particular area. Of course this study is related to a specific area – for other anchor areas one might to do a separate study. At least it provides an indication of the required distances.

9

reassurances for British seafarers whose ability to work in Europe could be affected by Brexit.

Commenti disabilitati su reassurances for British seafarers whose ability to work in Europe could be affected by Brexit.

Nautilus has urged the UK government to provide practical support and reassurances for British seafarers whose ability to work in Europe could be affected by Brexit.

General secretary Mark Dickinson and UK Chamber of Shipping chief executive Bob Sanguinetti met shipping minister Nusrat Ghani for ‘constructive’ discussions about the maritime impact of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

High on the agenda was the future recognition of UK certificates of competency by other EU member states. ‘We discussed the issue of mutual recognition and the measures being taken to mitigate the consequences of a no-deal Brexit, including the government having written to the Netherlands, Greece, Cyprus, Malta and Denmark, urging them to continue to recognise UK certificates after we leave the EU,’ Mr Dickinson said.

Nautilus asked the minister to make a renewed public statement of reassurance and to write to all officers whose certificates are due to expire in next 12 months – estimated to be around 500. Ms Ghani said she would follow up on this during a meeting with the Maritime & Coastguard Agency.

Mr Dickinson said he had suggested a hotline/dedicated email address to handle queries about certification and for a ‘fast-track’ priority system for any officers needing to urgently renew their certificates. ‘The government will look into that, but feel that there are the necessary measures in place already,’ he added.

Nautilus also urged the minister to ensure that the UK was ready to undergo a European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) audit of its certification processes and also asked how the UK will assess the training and certification of other countries – a role that EMSA presently undertakes for EU member states. ‘The response was that the UK already approves 50 countries and has the experience to continue that after Brexit. They don’t see this as a problem,’ Mr Dickinson commented.

The Union also asked the minister to provide information about the outcome of the review of UK certificates of equivalent competency, which was concluded last year.

Mr Dickinson described the meeting as productive. ‘As social partners, it was reassuring to hear of the minister’s determination to ensure that UK CoC holders could continue to work in the EU fleet,’ he added. ‘We pledged to do what we can to ensure that officers are aware of what measures have been taken and the availability of support from the MCA to anyone seeking to renew CoCs now.’

Older Entries Newer Entries