TMSA makes Vetting inspection redundant?

The Tanker Management and Self-Assessment guidelines were first published by the Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) in June 2004. With positive support from the maritime press it was introduced to tanker operators and imposed upon them by a number of the oil major charterers. Since introduction, TMSA, as it has become known, has had a significant impact on management systems and has become a driving force promoting continuous improvement amongst the leading operators. Four years on, with a second edition due publication shortly, it is perhaps timely to examine what this initiative may ultimately achieve. This article will also briefly propose that one objective must be the elimination of the ubiquitous tanker vetting inspection. The TMSA programme offers a standard framework for assessment of a ship operators management system. It is also intended to help ship operators to improve their management systems and to help industry to make well informed vetting decisions. Good operators of tankers have always considered vetting inspections an unnecessary and expensive exercise. However, there were always those operators who took advantage and saw vetting inspections as a cheaper option than employing experienced superintendents. These operators used the vetting inspector to identify deficiencies which were then corrected before the next inspection, which in turn identified a further catalogue of deficiencies. Fortunately, those days are behind us and most if not all the latter operators have been forced out of the tanker business or perhaps into other sectors where standards are less demanding. It has to be admitted that vetting inspections over the past 15 years have significantly improved the operational conditions of all tankers. For operators with qualified, experienced, well trained and motivated crews, good management systems and rigorous attention to detail, a vetting inspection was an expensive verification that all or most of their systems were working. An operator committed to the highest standards of safety and environmental excellence onboard their vessels using the TMSA guidelines as a measurement tool would always know the status of each ship. If that operator had inspection processes similar to, or the equivalent of, the OCIMF Ship Inspection Report Programme (SIRE) or Chemical Distribution Institute (CDI) vessel inspection questionnaires (VIQs), then vessels in the fleet would all be at a standard anticipated by these systems and ready for inspection at any time. All defects and deficiencies would have been identified with plans and timelines for corrective action. These would be monitored to close-out by the shore management. The only reason an operator may request a vetting inspection would be for commercial necessity. Here, there has been long standing confusion caused by Charter Party clauses that confuse vetting and inspection. The former being the process for evaluation of data to determine whether the vessel is suitable for the intended voyage; whilst the latter is one of the processes of

Allport TMSA vs Vetting 03 2008

29-Feb-08

Contd
data collection. If inspections are redundant the confusion is removed and we are left with vetting decisions. If that operator was requesting a vetting inspection for any other reason, it indicated they did not trust or were uncertain of their own management system. If their own inspection format is not equivalent to the SIRE or CDI VIQ then there may still be areas on the vessel inadequately monitored, that operator would at best only be at the minimum level of TMSA conformance as they are clearly not seeking safety and environmental excellence. Recognising the benefits of TMSA, a number of Oil Majors have signalled that they would like to do away with vetting inspections, although to date they all still carry them out. The leading indicators recommended in the TMSA guidelines provide sufficient information to assess the risk associated with use of those operators vessels. They also provide a valued determination of whether they have effective control processes implemented, not only to justify acceptance for spot or term business, but also to deliver a sustained level of safety and environmental excellence. An increasing number of sophisticated electronic risk management systems, used by the Oil Majors when screening vessels for potential service, make an evaluation from their databases of lagging indicators, in order to confirm that the standard of performance matches the operators self-assessment. A solution many operators have adopted to provide the necessary level of detail about the operational status on each vessel is to introduce a continuous assessment process onboard based upon the SIRE/CDI VIQs with monthly status reporting to update the shore management records. Superintendents and managers audit this self assessment during visits onboard to verify its accuracy and consistency. They can confirm that all defects and deficiencies have been identified and that plans with timelines for preventative and corrective action have been implemented. Vetting inspections thus become unnecessary. The TMSA profile provides confirmation that the system is implemented and the fleet performance lagging indicators provide evidence that it is working effectively. Internal auditing confirms the former whilst terminal inspections and incident monitoring confirm the latter. If the fleet delivers a flawless operation using the above, why incur the impact on crew time and also the expense of vetting inspection? Without doubt, commitment to and application of the TMSA guidelines will make vetting inspections redundant. Captain Chris Allport FNI Independent Marine Consultant Gout-Rossignol, Dordogne, France

Allport TMSA vs Vetting 03 2008

29-Feb-08