Published on Australian Maritime Safety Authority (https://www.amsa.gov.au)
AMSA conducts audits of accredited marine surveyors to ensure the procedures and protocols set out in the National Law – Marine Surveyors Accreditation Guidance Manual (SAGM) and the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Regulation 2013 (the regulations) are followed correctly.
The cases below contain examples of major non-conformances.
A certificate of survey application for a new build 2B extended vessel was refused when several major non-conformances were identified. These included but were not limited to:
The surveyors involved were counselled for contravention of conditions of accreditation.
---
Alterations were made to a Catamaran which saw the vessel’s measured length increase by more than six metres.
As part of an application for a new certificate of survey, the plan approval activity was recommended listing the original measured length prior to the alterations. No compelling justification for the initial measurement being maintained was provided by the plan approval surveyor following requests for information. The measured length of the vessel had not been calculated in accordance with NSCV Part B and this had substantial implications for the certification and operation of the vessel.
The Plan approval surveyor was issued a counselling notice for contravention of conditions of accreditation.
The surveyor who conducted the Commissioning, Initial Hull Structure, and Initial Fire Systems & Fitout surveys failed to notify AMSA of the incorrect measured length despite the extension being in the survey scope. The surveyor was sent a notice of assessment finding letter and educated with regards to their regulatory responsibilities.
---
A surveyor failed to conduct a periodic lightship verification during the renewal survey of a 12.65m class 1 vessel. Instead, the surveyor recommended the periodic lightship check with a declaration signed by the vessel owner.
The surveyor undertook a lightship check as a corrective action following an audit. However, AMSA noted the lightship report did not conform to the requirements of SAGM part 2 Chapter 4.9 for the following reasons:
Based on the failure to establish the variation in displacement and LCG, follow up action was required by the local AMSA office with the vessel owner to demonstrate that the vessel’s stability remains adequate for the intended operations.
The surveyor was issued a counselling letter for contravention of conditions of accreditation.
There are some accredited surveyors with monitoring conditions placed on their accreditation.
Surveyors should check their current notice of decision letter and follow the process below if there is a monitoring condition imposed.
An AMSA representative will communicate with you and arrange to either:
Your accreditation is subject to the conditions in Division 3.3 of the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Regulation 2013. A failure to comply with these conditions of your accreditation, may lead to a variety of compliance measures in accordance with AMSA’s Compliance and Enforcement Policy.
It is in your best interests to notify AMSA of your intention to undertake a monitoring survey so we can assist you with having the conditions removed.
While acknowledging the high quality of surveys performed by most of the Recognised Organisations (ROs) on DCVs, AMSA has also noticed several inconsistencies and deficiencies related to some vessels surveyed and recommended by RO surveyors. AMSA has invested significant time assessing these applications. On numerous occasions, AMSA has identified gaps in submissions from requirements of the National Law and incomplete responses to requests for information. This has led to delays of several months in some instances.
Below is a list of common findings identified in the past few months. AMSA encourages all RO surveyors to consider these items prior to making a recommendation to avoid delays, refusals, and compliance action on vessels.
Stability assessments may be conducted to simplified stability criteria in NSCV C6A Chapter 7 through the application of a stability proof test. This provides a simpler method of intact stability assessment, without the need to determine lightship particulars, loading conditions, KN data and hydrostatic data. Vessel hydrostatic data may still be required for verifying damage stability compliance.
SAGM Part 2 Chapter 4.9 requires vessels to periodically verify lightship particulars to confirm the vessel stability compliance remains valid. Class 1 vessels up to 12 metres in length and class 2 and 3 vessels can use the lightship declaration method. However, class 1 vessels over 12 meters cannot use a lightship declaration and must verify their lightship displacement at 5 yearly intervals.
Generally, this can be achieved through repeating the stability proof test or through confirming drafts or freeboards against a known load condition when the vessel stability compliance was first established (some stability assessments do use simplified stability criteria combined with hydrostatic data and a numerical analysis, these vessels can conduct a lightship assessment per NSCV C6C).
To allow comparison to a known loading condition at renewal survey it is recommended that freeboards are documented for a “near lightship condition” in the vessel stability compliance report (noting the NSCV C6A 8.6.5.1 requirement, lightship with incline weights onboard to represent full tanks may be the easiest to reproduce periodically). The stability compliance report should also include the precise locations for taking freeboards, in the form of sketches or annotated photos to reduce sources of error.
As most vessels assessed to simplified stability criteria don’t have hydrostatic data to quantify changes in lightship displacement, AMSA has determined that an accredited surveyor must verify that there has been no significant change in the vessel freeboards or drafts from those recorded at its initial certification in a known load condition. AMSA acknowledge that no significant change is not quantified, however it is expected a surveyor will be able to justify their recommendation with respect to any observed variation and the NSCV criteria at audit.
Where significant change in freeboards or drafts are identified the surveyor should conduct a new stability proof test to ensure compliance with the selected stability criteria.
If stability compliance reports do not include a known load condition, that can be accurately reproduced to identify any change in lightship particulars, then AMSA will require the vessel to undergo a new stability proof test to demonstrate compliance with a deemed to satisfy solution.
Where a vessels stability has been assessed to comprehensive stability criteria, the surveyor must conduct a lightship check in accordance with NSCV C6C.
AMSA has recently been asked for clarification of the requirements for a floating structure to be considered as permanently connected to shore.
AMSA as the National Regulator cannot provide legal advice on such matters and each case would need to be considered on its unique circumstances. AMSA suggests take the characteristics below should be considered when determining whether a floating structure is permanently connected to shore:
This is to be considered as general advice only. Operators and Surveyors should seek their own legal advice as and where necessary.
Recently AMSA has fielded enquiries regarding the notification requirements when a vessel undergoes an engine change.
As mentioned in the November 2019 edition of Survey Matters, an AMSA 1847 form with supporting documentation must be submitted for engine changes on EX40 and certificate of survey vessels.
Under Marine Order 503 Schedule 1 clause (6)(b) – an increase in propulsion power for an existing vessel, that invalidates the assumptions and calculations used for structural or stability assessment, triggers the transitional vessel requirements.
EIAPP certification, issued in accordance with MARPOL Annex VI is required for vessels fitted with a new diesel engine after 30 June 2018, that has a propulsion power >130 kw, unless covered by Exemption 44.
Under Marine Safety (Domestic commercial vessels-EIAPP certificate) Exemption 2021 (Exemption 44), DCV owners and operators are exempt from holding an EIAPP certificate provided they hold acceptable alternative documents stating or showing that each installed engine is likely to comply with the applicable emission limits or tiers that apply to it under regulation 13 of Annex VI. Acceptable alternative documents are:
There are many vessels, which for varied reasons cannot follow the phases of initial survey set out in SAGM Part 2 Chapter 3.8. A common example is a vessel which has triggered full initial survey and must undertake an initial hull survey. For any number of reasons this might not be possible or appropriate.
As a result, the alternate survey process exists to allow for approved deviations from the survey process prescribed by SAGM and Marine Order 503. SAGM Part 2 Chapter 3.8 (2) states:
2. All three phases mentioned in (1) must be conducted to complete the initial survey process, unless the National Regulator approves otherwise in writing.
Note: Initial survey requirements for Load Line Certificates are in Chapter 6.
The key being ‘…approved otherwise in writing.’ All deviations from the survey process require this written approval from AMSA.
The AMSA 1854 form shall be completed and emailed to dcvsurvey@amsa.gov.au along with supporting information. It is important that the application explains why the defined process cannot be followed and proposes an alternate process.
To take the example from above, think of an aluminium fishing vessel currently in survey with a geographic restriction to South Australia. Full initial survey is required to remove this restriction. In this example the hull hasn’t been altered, the vessel has a current certificate of survey and has been maintained in survey for the vessel’s life. To perform an initial hull survey would be challenging. It could be proposed on the AMSA 1854 form to perform a 10 yearly hull inspection in lieu of the initial hull survey.
There are any number of different cases in this instance, but it is critical that the approval is made in writing from the national regulator. This saves time and gives greater certainty when submitting survey recommendations for a vessel that is slightly out of the ordinary.