ParaHandy
Well-Known Member
there's a MAIB report here abt a danish trawler bumping into a UK registered 2,000grt cargo boat in clear vis on 2 Nov 04 where the trawler had nobody on the bridge as the crew were all preparing the catch and the cargo ship had a single watchkeeper because t'other was cooking the supper. The trawler had what he thought were valid NUC lights up and expected everybody else to keep clear ... yes, that's true ...
The MCA issued a safe manning certificate in June 04 to the cargo ship for near coastal waters (within 150m of UK) requiring 5 crew. This manning proposal was presented to the MCA just days before the vessel was acquired by its owners. The previous admin authority, Netherlands, had also approved this manning level.
The MAIB commented:
Administrations are obliged to ensure that the proposals of ship owners and managers are reasonable, otherwise the requirement for approval is meaningless. However, Administrations have their own financial and political pressures, which interfere with this process. In this case, although the ship manager did not state that it would approach another Administration if its proposed manning for Scot Explorer was not generally accepted, the MCA was conscious that this was a likely course of action. Consequently, it had to decide whether to allow the vessel to trade between the UK and Scandinavia with fewer crew than similar vessels within the same company, or to lose the ship to another Administration, as had happened on other occasions. By approving the ship’s operation with a crew of five within defined geographical constraints, which was acceptable to the ship manager, the MCA was able to put the ship on its register and had some control on her operation.
The bit that interests me is the last sentence because something similar appears in the FSA's justification to regulate financial enterprises. Time and again, every life, insurance and securities cpys treat their customers like dirt, generally, because they have insufficient or adequately trained staff to handle the business. The FSA clucks disapprovement but nothing happens.
We might think we're the most over-regulated country in the world but, scratch the surface and a very different picture emerges ...
The MCA issued a safe manning certificate in June 04 to the cargo ship for near coastal waters (within 150m of UK) requiring 5 crew. This manning proposal was presented to the MCA just days before the vessel was acquired by its owners. The previous admin authority, Netherlands, had also approved this manning level.
The MAIB commented:
Administrations are obliged to ensure that the proposals of ship owners and managers are reasonable, otherwise the requirement for approval is meaningless. However, Administrations have their own financial and political pressures, which interfere with this process. In this case, although the ship manager did not state that it would approach another Administration if its proposed manning for Scot Explorer was not generally accepted, the MCA was conscious that this was a likely course of action. Consequently, it had to decide whether to allow the vessel to trade between the UK and Scandinavia with fewer crew than similar vessels within the same company, or to lose the ship to another Administration, as had happened on other occasions. By approving the ship’s operation with a crew of five within defined geographical constraints, which was acceptable to the ship manager, the MCA was able to put the ship on its register and had some control on her operation.
The bit that interests me is the last sentence because something similar appears in the FSA's justification to regulate financial enterprises. Time and again, every life, insurance and securities cpys treat their customers like dirt, generally, because they have insufficient or adequately trained staff to handle the business. The FSA clucks disapprovement but nothing happens.
We might think we're the most over-regulated country in the world but, scratch the surface and a very different picture emerges ...
