Planned Maintenance – 15 January 2022 to 28 February 2022
AMSA conducted a Planned Maintenance Focused Inspection Campaign (FIC) over the period 15 January 2022 to 28 February 2022.
The campaign focused on:
a. the level of compliance with the planned maintenance system (PMS) requirements of the International Conventions. This included statutory requirements under SOLAS and mandatory PMS requirements from the ISM Code; and
b. the familiarity of the master and officers with their processes for ensuring maintenance of the ship and equipment and, whether the ship has been maintained after survey in accordance with statutory requirements.
In conjunction with a standard port State control (PSC) and flag State control (FSC) inspection, specific questions relating to planned maintenance were asked by the AMSA inspectors. These questions, and a Marine Notice announcing the campaign, were promulgated on AMSA’s website prior to commencement of the FIC.
The campaign was conducted as a core part of AMSA’s Compliance Plan for 2021/22. The FIC was scheduled for two months commencing on 15 January 2022. AMSA ceased the campaign on 28 February 2022 as the target inspection level of 200 inspections was reached and in consideration of COVID-19 protocols. During the inspection period a total of 271 inspections were recorded.
Results
The FIC results showed that a high number of ships failed to comply with planned maintenance. The results were as follows:
a. 271 ships were inspected during the FIC;
b. AMSA detained 17 ships during the period of the FIC campaign, 7 of which were detained as a direct result of the planned maintenance FIC. This means that 41.2% of all detentions during the FIC campaign related to the questions asked during the planned maintenance FIC.
Key results of the FIC included:
a. Of the seven detentions, three ships were detained for single critical maintenance issue (e.g. air pipes) and four were detained for multiple maintenance related deficiencies under the ISM code,
b. Nine (3.3%) ships did not follow permit to work safety management procedures, which underpin the safe management of higher risk duties,
c. Five (3.9% adjusted for n/a) ships did not have complete records of inspection for cargo securing equipment, and
d. Five (3.6% adjusted for n/a) ships did not have procedures adopted to ensure engine software is appropriately updated.
The Ships detained under the ISM code for maintenance recorded a high number of deficiencies that contributed to the detention in multiple maintenance areas. On average this equated to over 13 deficiencies per ship detained under ISM.
The most positive results were that the majority of ships are:
a. Inspecting survival craft falls periodically (99%), and
b. Ensuring that maintenance inspection intervals were undertaken in accordance with SMS (99%) as implemented onboard.
Our continued focus
AMSA has promulgated educational guidance relating to Planned Maintenance. Ship operators, Masters and crew are strongly encouraged to review these documents and take steps to improve planned maintenance systems that include regular and thorough maintenance, visual inspections and operational tests of equipment onboard your ships. This information can be found on the AMSA Website:
Effective and regular maintenance reduces the risk of equipment failure and ensures that a system continues to perform its intended function as per its design and with direct reference to safety and reliability. AMSA will continue to focus on planned maintenance when ships visit Australian ports.
As a result of this campaign, AMSA intends to:
- Continue to focus attention on the importance of effective and appropriate planned maintenance systems and section 10 of the ISM code,
- Continue our focus on safety management procedures and permit to work systems that underpin higher risk duties,
- Increase our focus on the maintenance of cargo securing equipment.
Planned Maintenance FIC Results
| Question | Yes | Yes% | No | No% | N/A |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Have survival craft falls been inspected periodically, with special regard to areas passing through sheaves? | 250 | 92% | 1 | 0.4% | 20 |
| Have Safety Management System procedures for permits to work been properly used onboard? | 262 | 97% | 9 | 3% | |
| Have the IMO Guidelines for fixed carbon dioxide fire-extinguishing systems been incorporated in the maintenance plan? | 221 | 82% | 9 | 3% | 41 |
| Have the air pipes to ballast and other tanks been maintained after survey? | 265 | 98% | 6 | 2% | |
| Have maintenance inspections been held at intervals in accordance with the SMS? | 269 | 99% | 2 | 1% | |
| Has the Sewage Treatment Plant been maintained to conform to the provisions of MARPOL Annex IV? | 249 | 92% | 6 | 2% | 16 |
| Have essential software, such as engine and generator control system software, been maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions? | 187 | 69% | 7 | 3% | 77 |
| Has the inventory and inspection of cargo securing equipment been conducted by the ship's crew? | 124 | 46% | 5 | 2% | 142 |
| Has the ship been maintained after survey? | 263 | 97% | 7 | 3% | 1 |