A STUDY ON VETTING INSPECTIONS AND THE KEY CAUSES FOR VETTING

OBSERVATIONS.

RESEARCH PAPER FOR SHIP

PREPARED BY:

RAJKUMARR K

2ND OFFICER
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the following research on topic is done by my group. References for the literature
review were taken from several books, internet websites and newspapers no, plagiarism was done
during the course of this research.

NAME: RAJKUMARR SIGNATURE……………………

 DEDICATION

We would like to dedicate this dissertation all of the

Seafaring community
&
Their Families

We also thank the Malaysian Maritime Academy,

Lecturer’s, officer’s of the D1MC 29 batch and to all our batch
Second mates , for their encouragement and support from the
beginning up till the final stage of this project.

Thank you
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I would like to express his utmost gratitude and appreciation to the supervisor of this
project, Mr. Syameer Awal Mohamed for his advises and comments that guided me through the whole
process in completing this dissertation.

I would also like to express my appreciation for the project coordinator,Captain MYO THANT
for his assistance, comments and for sharing his views as a Master Mariner.

Besides that I would like express my gratitude to Captain David Sagaya Rajan as Head of second
officers Department Malaysian Maritime Academy for his supporting role during the process of
research.

Finally, I would like to thank those who are directly or indirectly involve in making this dissertation a
reality.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title page

Declaration

Dedication

Acknowledgment

Table of content

List of figures

List of abbreviations

Abstract

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Statement of problem

1.2 Purpose of the study

1.3 Significance of the study

1.4 Research questions

1.5 Scope of Study

1.6 Definition of Terms

CHAPTER 2: Review of Literature

2.0 Introduction

2.1 What is Vetting Inspection?

2.2 History

2.3 Basic Information

2.4 Preparing for and conducting vetting inspection

2.5 Reporting

2.6 What are repetitive observations?

2.7 Why are these observations repeated within the same fleet/organization and the main causes are
listed below?

2.8 Conclusion

CHAPTER 3: Research Design

3.0 Introduction

3.1 Research Design

3.2 Population

3.3 Sample and Selection

3.4 Instrumentation

3.5 Administration
3.6 Data Analysis

CHAPTER 4: Findings

4.1 Introduction

4.2 The Questionnaire

4.3 Research findings

4.4 Repetitive observations

4.5 Causes for repetitive observations

4.6 Scope for any improvement

CHAPTER 5: Conclusions & Recommendations

5.0 Introduction

5.1 Respondent‟s perception about vetting inspection carried onboard tankers

5.2 Respondent‟s perception about the repetitive observations

5.3 Respondent‟s perception in minimizing the vetting observations onboard tankers

5.4 Recommendations

References

Appendix
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

4.1 RANK OF RESPONDENTS

4.2 SEA EXPERIENCE OF RESPONDENTS

4.3 TANKER EXPERIENCE OF RESPONDENTS

4.4 NO.OF INSPECTIONS OF RESPONDENTS

4.5 AREA OF SAILING OF RESPONDENTS

4.6 IMPORTANCE OF VETTING INSPECTIONS

4.7 EXTERNAL FACTORS AFFECTING

4.8 VESSEL INSPECTION QUESTIONNAIRE

4.9 GOALS OF VETTING INSPECTION

4.10 VIOLATION OF REST HOURS

4.11 HELP PROVIDED BY SENIOR OFFICERS

ZERO VETTING OPERATION TARGET IS

4.12 ACHIEVABLE
VETTING INSPECTION PROCESS CAN BE
4.13 ENHANCED
4.14 LSA/FFA EQUIP. ARE NOT IN ORDER

4.15 NAUT. PUBS. ARE NOT CORRECTED.

GARBAGE SEGREGATION IS NOT DONE
4.16 PROPERLY

PAPER WORK NOT CARRIED OUT

4.17 APPROPRIATELY BY SENIOR OFFICERS.

GANGWAY SECURITY WATCH NOT

4.18 MAINTAINED PROPERLY.

ARE OFFICERS COMPETENT ENOUGH TO

4.19 UNDERGO VETTING INSPECTIONS?

IS ADEQUATE ASSISSTANCE PROVIDED

4.20 FROM SHORE.

SHORTER VOYAGES CAUSE MULTIPLE

4.21 VETTING OBSEVATION?

IS PROPER NOTICE GIVEN TO SEASTAFF

4.22 BEFORE AN INSPECTION?

IS CREW COMPETENCY A FACTOR FOR

4.23 VETTING OBSERVATION?

CAN PROPER TRAINING REDUCE THE

4.24 VETTING OBSERVATION?

WIIL MENTORING SESSION WITH SENIOR

4.25 OFFICERS HELP JUNIOR OFFICERS COPE
BATTER WITH INSPECTIONS?

SHOULDN'T CREW BE GIVEN TRAINING

4.26 TOO?

MENTORING SESSION WITH VETTING

4.27 INSPECTORS WILL HELP SHIP STAFF
BETTER UNDERSTAND THE VETTING
INSPECTION?
FREQUENCY OF THE VETTING
4.28 INSPECTIONS SHOULD BE REDUCED.
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ICS International chamber of shipping

ISGOTT International safety guide for oil tankers and terminals

OCIMF Oil companies international marine forum

VIQ Vessel Inspection Questionnaire

VPQ Vessel Particular Questionnaire

SOLAS Safety Of Life At Sea

CDI Chemical Distribution Institute

STCW Standards of Training, Certification & Watchkeeping for seafarer‟s „95

SIRE Ship Inspection Report

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of pollution from ships 73/78

SMS Safety Management System

LSA Life saving appliances

FFA Fire Fighting Appliances

ETA Estimated Time Of Arrival

IMO NUMBER International Maritime Organization Number

 ABSTRACT

Petroleum forms the basis of the industrial revolution and to the maintenance of an industrial

civilization in itself. As it is the lifeline of modern industries it is of critical concern to many nations.

The world consumes 30 billion barrels of oil per year, with the developed nations, most of them lying in

the western hemisphere, being the largest consumers, while the major global oil reserves are restricted

to the middle-eastern and Southeast Asian regions. The most significant barrier therefore is

transportation of these reserves.

This is where oil tankers come in. An oil tanker is a merchant ship designed for the bulk

carriage of oil. They are of two basic types: crude, which move large quantities of unrefined crude oil

from the extraction point to refineries and product which carry petrochemicals further into the

consuming markets. Oil, although an important resource presents significant and major hazards to the

human and marine environment. Thus it is a necessity that all major extraction and transportation

operations are carried out with extreme caution with proper and safe methods, practices and procedures

kept in mind at all times. Safety should become a habit and should not be taken as a compulsion.

The Oil Companies International Marine Forum is a voluntary association of oil companies having

an interest in the shipment of crude oil and oil products and aims to be the foremost authority on the

environmentally safe operation of oil tankers and designs procedures for which aim at improving the

standards of operations. The Ship Inspection Report (SIRE) programme is the most significant safety
initiatives of the OCIMF. The SIRE programme is predicated through vetting inspections among other

things which are beyond the scope of this research.

The industry however, is faced with another problem. The very tool that was designed to alleviate

sub-standard shipping of oil and it‟s products has lead to another complication. In the race to attract the

attention of more safety-concerned customers, companies choose to put their ships through several

inspections at as frequent intervals as possible. This sometimes leads to numerous observations. This

research aims to find a solution to the aforementioned observations and the effect that it has on the

seafarer‟s concerned.
 CHAPTER – ONE

TITLE:

A Study on the Vetting Inspections and the Key causes for repetitive Vetting Observations.

1.0 INTRODUCTION:

A Vetting inspection refers to a physical inspection of the vessel‟s condition id est an inspection
safety of vessel, crew and cargo. It is conducted by the charter, to examine whether the vessel is suitable
for chartering based on the information/observations obtained by the vessel which is been inked by the
vetting officer from the oil major companies.

This study is carried out with the objective to analyse the causes for vetting observations and
repetitive observations sighted by oil major companies/organizations. There are many oil major
companies around the world which charter the oil tankers/vessels of shipping companies to survey the
same for their profitable and safe business with the shipper.

The Ship Inspection Report (SIRE) database was created for use by oil companies. For each voyage,
the vetting department assesses the vessel to be used, relying in particular on inspection results. Unlike
certification or classification, vetting is a private, voluntary system operators may opt to use to help
them choose a particular vessel from among all of the certified vessels available, and to manage their
risks.

The inspections are carried out by the oil companies who are members of OIL COMPANIES
INTERNATIONAL MARINE FORUM (OCIMF) share via the joint SIRE database. In general, oil major
companies carry out vetting inspections according to the report which is developed by the OCIMF.
These reports are available to all the OCIMF members via SIRE database, which generates valuable
source of information to the vetting department of the shipping companies.

Tanker vetting operations are carried out during the unloading operations without jeopardising the safety
of vessel, crew and the cargo with the prior memorandum of understanding between the ship-owner and
the management company, the vetting organization is authorised to allow third parties onboard the
vessel. The ship‟s personnel prepare for vetting inspection with the aid of VESSEL INSPECTION
QUESTIONNAIRE (VIQ) and with the help of VESSEL PARTICULAR QUESTIONNAIRE (VPQ)
for its certification purposes.

1.1 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM :

In recent years safety related and voyage related critical observations have been given on-board tanker
vessels by oil major companies like SHELL, PETRONAS, BRITISH PETROLEUM, EXXON MOBIL,
CONOCO PHILIPS - which account for a major share of the business within the same organization /
shipping company - repetitively even though the officers and ratings go through this vetting process
often and have been trained by their company / organization for the same. The required standards are yet
to be met, which jeopardises the safety of vessel, crew, cargo and the environment.

1.2 PURPOSE OF STUDY:

The purpose of the study is to identify the key reasons for the repetitive critical safety related and
voyage related observations given on-board tankers by the oil major companies on vessels even though
officers are well-trained and had gone through the vetting inspections considerable number of times.

1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY:

The significance of this study is to assist the maritime off- shore and sea going personnel to maximizing
the safety culture on-board. Safety practices should be habitual rather than a job compulsion. The aim is
to ensure that critical issues that concern charter‟s are reduced. Maintenance of the vessel should be such
that it is in an immediate state of readiness for inspections. The study endeavours to reveal proper
procedures and techniques to deal with the vetting operations successfully so as to satisfy both charter
party and the shipper and the way to implement a new positive system to reduce the observations.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The study is based on the factors or the causes for the repetitive vetting observations; whereby the
following questions will be researched in detail for the study in order to minimize the same in the future.
These observations are inked by some major oil companies on a leading oil carriage shipping company.

 WHAT ARE THE REPETITIVE OBSERVATIONS?

 WHAT ARE THE KEY CAUSES FOR THE REPETITIVE VETTING OBSERVATIONS?
  WHAT PRACTICES SHOULD BE INCULTATED TO MINIMIZE THESE REPETITIVE
OBSERVATIONS?

1.5 SCOPE OF STUDY:

The study examines the research questions. In addition to it, the theory will also include comments
posted by the oil major companies on the vetting inspections and its observations to the shipping
company after their visit to a tanker. All this data will be collected and analyzed to ensure that only
relevant reasons are obtained for the study.

1.6 DEFINITION OF TERMS:

1
Vetting Inspection
-is the common name on inspections conducted by an Oil Major, on oil tanker intended for service, in
order to verify that the tanker complies with the Oil Major’s requirements. CDI Inspection is required
on other tankers, as chemical and gas tankers.

“A GUIDE TO VETTING INSPECTION “- SECOND EDITION, (1998)

Oil Major 2
-is referring to the Oil Companies (members of OCIMF), but the term is also now used on some of the
Charterers and some of the Traders.

“SHELL VETTING BOOKLET “. . . . (2000)

Observation 3
– A recorded deficiency or remark noted by the Vetting Inspector normally referred to the VIQ,
other OCIMF publications, or industry requirements. Operator’s Comments –
In this procedure means the Technical Manager’s response to the Oil Major on Observations noted
during the Vetting Inspection1“ A GUIDE TO VETTING INSPECTION “- SECOND EDITION . . . .
(1998)
 CHAPTER -TWO

INTRODUCTION:
This chapter is an overview of the subject, which deals with the term „vetting inspection‟ and the history
of vetting inspections viz., how the vessel is prepared for the vetting inspection, how the entire
examination is carried out and the principles behind it. In addition, the chapter also includes the
repetitive vetting observations which have been linked by the vetting inspector‟s on-board tankers of a
leading tanker operator and the main causes for the same. The chapter cites the full vetting process from
the time the vessel is named for the inspection until the reporting procedures.

2.1 WHAT IS VETTING INSPECTION?

Ship vetting is an in-depth assessment of a ship with respect to its quality, that of its owner, operator
and manager, right from commissioning to its current status. Vetting enables the charterer to optimise
vessel selection by matching available vessels to operational requirements of the voyage and therefore
maximising efficiency.
“ www.Wikipedia.com “

HISTORY:

Tanker ownership was traditionally with oil companies, long term charters were becoming
increasingly rare with the spot charter market becoming very active. In the 70‟s and 80‟s the oil industry
saw ownership of tankers gradually moving from oil companies to independent ship owners. The pattern
of the tanker ownership moved from the well established independent ship-owner with a substantial fleet
to non-traditional shipping interests, often with no active interest in shipping. The fleet size was
sometimes extremely small, sometimes only a single ship representing the owner‟s stake in the oil
industry. The oil industry, now being a major spot charterer of all types of tonnage, began to be
concerned with the quality of tankers. A number of members companies of an internationally well
established organisation called the OCIMF began the development of ship vetting systems in the late
70‟s and early 80‟s. Each scheme was unique to the individual company‟s needs.

Recognising that different standards were sometimes being applied, with consequent confusion on
amongst ship owners , OCIMF members developed inspection guidelines for oil tankers in 1989 , based
on international conventions such as SOLAS , MARPOL and STCW and industry accepted technical
guidance such as ISGOTT( international safety guide for oil tankers and terminals ) the number of major
tankers accidents in 1989 , ship quality and liability issues were assumed an even greater prominence in
the oil industry.

“ British Petroleum vetting guide , 2008 “

BASIC INTRODUCTION

A step by step process of a vetting operation from the initial request until the final approval may be
described as follows:

1. Instructions are received to arrange a specific OIL MAJOR VETTING INSPECTION.

2. The superintendent and vetting manager agree whether it is possible to conduct vetting inspection in
the current port, and ensure that no other inspections and /or Class surveys will be carried out
concurrently.
3. The oil major is approached with a request for inspection in a specific discharge port at an
approximate time. The request must include : VESSEL NAME , IMO NUMBER , ETA , TIME IN
PORT , LOCAL AGENT CONTACT REFERENCE , INVOICING DETAILS and /or where to
send the report . Some oil major companies have internet request and some have special forms.
4. Information to the vessel when attendance is confirmed, including a request to vessel to inform the
agent about the vetting inspector attendance.
5. Prior to inspection, the master of the ship must update and prepare a cop of VPQ available to the
inspector.
6. Prior to the inspection, the master must prepare a copy of table 3.1.1 from the chapter 3 in the VIQ.
7. The vetting inspection is conducted on board. During the inspection, the inspector must always be
followed or guided by a senior officer and never be left alone or allowed to communicate with the
rating or junior officer unless a senior officer is present. This is mainly to avoid the
misunderstandings, but also to avoid that items are brought up later, which the master is unaware of.
8. After and inspection, there must always be a closing meeting with the inspector, ere the master can
comment on each and every observation that the inspector have recorded. In case there is no time for
a closing meeting, the master must insist that the inspector note this fact in his final report, and the
master must inform the company accordingly.
9. The master is encouraged to comment on each observation at his earliest convenience after a vetting
inspection, and submit his comments to the company.
10. Normally, the operator„s comments are not prepared until after the formal report is received from the
oil major. However, in some cases it may be worthwhile to be pro active and comment directly to the
oil major on basis of the notes left with the master. This approach may be useful in case the inspector
has detected a serious breach of regulations, or if it is a matter of a clear misunderstanding.
11. After the formal report from the vetting inspection is received in the office, the operator comments
are prepared. Prior to sending same to the oil major companies, the draft must be reviewed by the
master and the superintendent. the operator „s comments are prepared in an uniform format, where
sample forms will be found in previous records located at ;
12. The operator‟s comments are sent to the oil major companies as per the instructions on the received
report.
13. When the vessel is approved by the oil major, a statement is given that, no further information is
required. When this statement is received, we consider that the vessel approved by the oil major and
the case is closed; we must close all observations.
14. After the vessel is approved, the vetting inspection is registered in the vetting database and a final
copy of the operator‟s comments shall be filed on board in a designated vetting file.

PREPARING FOR, AND CONDUCTING A VETTING INSPECTION

In addition to the items mentioned in the above step-by-step description, the master and every officer on
board must be prepared for a vetting inspection. It is recommended to have a meeting with all crew prior
to a vetting, informing everybody on the result of previous inspection and what they should be prepared
for.

Prior to a vetting inspection, it is a good practice to review the most recent inspection reports also from
the oil major than the inspecting company, this because the oil major has access to all vetting inspections
conducted on the vessel. There is nothing worse than to find the deficiency, which has been reported
before and confirmed closed, but still existing. In the preparation for a vetting inspection, it is also a
good practise to review the record of port state controls and confirm that all deficiencies are properly
closed. Also ,a review of the class status report is a sound exercise , even if nothing can be done on short
notice , it is prudent to be aware of the content and having plans to deal with any outstanding class item.

As mentioned above, it is utmost important that the inspector is met on the gangway by the security and
not left alone during the inspection. It is further to be cooperative during the inspection and not to try to
hide something from the inspector. It is often better to reveal a deficiency and a plan for corrective
action to the inspector, rather than letting him find it. In most cases, the deficiency in progress of being
rectified will not be recorded. The master shall submit an updated VPQ to the company, whenever he
makes a change on board copy of the VPQ database. If it is just a matter of some certificates, it is
enough to send the changes on e mail, referring each change to the relevant reference number of the
VPQ. In this respect, the revision date of the VPQ must also be updated.
REPORTING:

As soon as a vetting inspection is completed, the master shall inform the company of the result of it, and
in due course provide his comments to the observations noted. All observations must be commented,
and it must be clearly described how the deficiency is corrected or when it is expected to be completed.
After the operator‟s comments has been prepared and agreed by the master and the superintendent, the
comments must be submitted to the oil major company and the SIRE. When the vessel is cleared by the
oil major, the vessel must be advised and a copy of the final operator‟s comments submitted to the
vessel.

TOPIC 1

WHAT ARE THE REPETITIVE OSBERVATIONS?

Listed below are the repetitive vetting observations inked by the vetting inspectors on board
tankers of a private shipping company.

1. .PASSAGE PLAN DOES NOT INCLUDE– NO –GO AREA, CONTINGENCY

ANCHORAGES, PARALLEL INDEXING, NAVIGATIONAL WARNINGS.
2. LSA/FFA EQUIPMENTS NOT IN ORDER.
3. JUNIOR ENGINEER NOT KNOWLEGABLE IN RECHARGING BA BOTTLES.
4. IMPROPER SEGREGATION OF GARBAGE.
5. GANGWAY WATCHMEN NOT AWARE OF SECURITY LEVELS.
6. REST HOUR LOG WAS NOT FILLED UP PROPERLY BY SENIOR ENGINEER
(BUNKERING OPERATIONS NOT MENTIONED IN REST/ WORK HOUR LOG).
7. NAVIGATING OFFICERS NOT FULLY AWARE OF VESSEL‟S MANOEUVRING
CHARACTERISTICS.
8. NAVIGATING OFFICERS NOT AWARE OF PROPER PROCEDURES FOR RADAR
PERFORMANCE CHECK.
9. MANUAL RADAR PLOTTINGS NOT BEING PRACTICED BY WKO‟s AND CADETS

TOPIC 2

Why are these observations repeated within the same fleet/organisation AND the main causes are
listed below:

1. Lack of Planned Maintenance Schedule.

2. Improper co-ordination between the ship‟s personnel and on- shore personnel.
3. There is less training given to the ship‟s crew and officers.
4. Shorter voyages of the vessels with less manpower.
5. Ignorance towards paper work.
6. Ship‟s requisition for spare parts not delivered at scheduled port.
7. Lackadaisical attitude of some junior officers.
8. Inadequate knowledge of company‟s SMS.
9. Poor management skills.

CONCLUSION:

This chapter dealt with the brief introduction about the entire procedure of the whole vetting process and
the role of ship‟s personnel and on shore personnel along in co-ordinating the oil major companies. The
aftermath of the vetting inspection such as reporting, comments by the master to the company with
respect to the observations were studied. In further research, the main causes of the repetitive
observations will be elaborated with the help of questionnaire and the other sources which had been
mentioned earlier.

References :

WWW.WIKIPEDIA.COM

SHELL VETTING BOOKLET

BRITISH PETROLEUM VETTING PROCEDURES

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH DESIGN

3.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter gives details about the research methods that are going to be adopted, to answer the research
questions mentioned in Chapter I. This chapter will describe briefly the scope of and the participants involved in
the research, the sample instrumentation and the administration of the research and the methods of data analysis.

3.1RESEARCH DESIGN

The research will be conducted by surveys posted in some social networking websites, by interviewing
senior officers using evaluation forms and questionnaires distributed to DIMC officers at the Akademi
Laut Malaysia
3.1 POPULATION

The research will be conducted at ALAM main campus of Melaka. The participants of the research will
be DIMC officers, lecturers of ALAM and also by surveys online on social networking sites. A few
selected officers will be chosen as subjects for this study. The main reason for choosing selected officers
and lecturers is because, only a few have tanker experience. This chapter act as a guide for our research
to study the main causes for the repetitive vetting observations within the same shipping company.

3.3SAMPLE AND SELECTION

From the total population, 50 out of 90 officers will be chosen from DIMC post sea department , 5 lecturers will
be chosen for the interviews . Data will be collected by the aforementioned methods. Questionnaires will be
distributed to all the three classes of DIMC. The same will be provided to the lecturers of ALAM who have tanker
experience. Surveys will also be conducted online in some social networking sites.

3.4 INSTRUMENTATION

The primary data source to be used is the interviews and questionnaires. The interviews will consist of
three sections. The first section will be a background profile of the respondents. The second section
focuses on the main reasons for the vetting observations on board tankers and the third section primarily
focuses on the how to minimize these vetting observations. The results be tabulated depending upon the
factors in percentage and will be graphed based on the outcome.

3.5 ADMINISTRATION

The research will be carried out during the free hours and through appointments given by the
respondents .The respondents will be given 24 hrs time to fill in the questionnaire and the interview
session will be held for 30 minutes time in their respective working places. Surveys in the social
networking sites will be conducted for a week‟s time and the main respondents will be officers around
the world with social networking account foremost and other floating staff with the same experience.

3.6 DATA ANALYSIS

Since the instruments going to be used in the research are questionnaires, interview sessions and
surveys, the method of data analysis will consist of graphical and pictorial representation of their
feedback. Once the outcome is retrieved , the feedback will be sorted out depending upon the degree of
causes and suggestions the study will mainly focus on the minimizing the effects for the repetitive
vetting observations in the further study .

CHAPTER - FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 INTRODUCTION:

This chapter deals with the data analysis on the response given by the respondents regarding
vetting inspections, factors affecting it and various possible causes for repetitive observations. The data
analysis was carried out using the percentage of the responses from the respondents to the questions
posed by questionnaires.

4.2 THE QUESTIONNAIRE:

The Questionnaire deals with the research questions as mentioned in the first chapter, the
repetitive observations, the key causes relating to it and means to reduce them. The questionnaire has
three sections, namely, Section A, Section B and Section C with Section B containing two parts.

Section A is the demographic profile of the respondents and it consists of personal details
about the respondents such as seafaring experience, current rank, tanker experience, number of
inspections they have encountered.

Section B analyses the vetting inspection in its totality and helps understand an officers‟ view
of the same through its two parts. „Part I‟ makes use of the like scale from 1 to 5 scale with options of
strongly disagree, disagree, indifferent, agree and strongly agree. „Part II‟ poses the research questions
mentioned in chapter one to the respondents giving them a choice to answer as a YES or NO option
according to their experience and knowledge. Thus all the research questions from chapter one are
answered through the questionnaire.

Section C is given as an option to the respondents in case they would want to share any
recommendations, comments or ideas relating to the research.

4.3 RESEARCH FINDINGS:

4.3.1 Section A: PERSONAL INFORMATION

RANK
FOURTH OFFICER THIRD OFFICER SECOND OFFICER

0%

16%

84%

Figure 4.1-RANK OF RESPONDENTS

FIG 1 shows the analysis on Question No. 1 (RANK) in Section A of the questionnaire.
Based on the collected questionnaire sets, 84 percent (42) of the respondents are second

mates and 16 percent (8) are third mates, 0 percent (0) are fourth mates.

SEA EXPERIENCE
1-5 YEARS OLD 5-10 YEARS OLD 10-15 YEARS OLD

4%
40%

56%

Figure 4.2- SEA EXPERIENCE OF RESPONDENTS

FIG 2 shows the analysis on Question No. 2 (experience) in „Section A‟ of the questionnaire.

Based on the collected questionnaire sets, out of 50 respondents, 40 percent (20) officers had

1 to 5 years of experience, 56 percent (28) officers had 5 to 10 years and the remaining 4

percent (2) officers had 10 to 15 years of experience.

 TANKER EXPERIENCE
1-5 YEARS 5-10 YEARS 10-15 YEARS

24%
46%

30%

Figure 4.3-TANKER EXPERIENCE OF RESPONDENTS

FIG 3 shows the analysis on Question No. 3 (Tanker experience) in „Section A‟ of the

questionnaire. Based on the collected questionnaire sets, 46 percent (23) officers 1-5 years,

30 percent (15) officers 5-10 years, 24 percent (12) officers 10-15 years of experience on

tankers.
 NO. OF INSPECTION
1 TO 5 5 TO 10 10 TO 15

4%
40%

56%

Figure 4.4-NO.OF INSPECTIONS OF RESPONDENTS

FIG 4 shows the analysis on Question No. 4 (No. of inspections) in „Section A‟ of the

Questionnaire. Based on the collected questionnaire sets out of 100 percent (50) Respondents,

40 percent (20) Individuals had been through 1 to 5 inspections in their time at sea, 56

Percent (28) had been through 5 to 10 and only 4 percent (2) had been through 10 to 15

Inspections.
 AREA OF SAILING
International Voyage Coastal Voyage International & coastal

26%

2%

72%

Figure 4.5-AREA OF SAILING OF RESPONDENTS

FIG 5 shows the analysis on Question No. 5 (Area of sailing) in „Section A‟ of the

questionnaire. Based on the collected questionnaire sets, out of the 100 percent (50)

respondents, 72 percent (36) had been engaged only in international voyages, 2 percent (1)

was engaged in coastal and the rest of the 26 percent (13) had been international and coastal

voyages.
4.3.1 Section B : Understanding the Inspection (Part I)

The inputs were taken from the respondents as values in the liker scale. The results

were interpreted and are displayed here in graphical form. As aforementioned the scale

varies from 1 to 5 scale with options of strongly disagree, disagree, indifferent, agree and

strongly agree.

I - IMPORTANCE OF VETTING INSPECTIONS

I II III IV V

0%
0%
10%

46%

Figure4.6 : Part B – I - 1

This figure shows the results obtained for the statement “Vetting Inspection is important

for proper operation of the vessel.” Most respondents have agreed or strongly agreed with

this statement. None of the respondents disagreed with this statement, although 10 percent

(5) respondents expressed indifference out of 100 percent (50) respondents.

 II - EXTERNAL FACTORS AFFECTING
I II III IV V

0%

32%

36%
14%

Figure4.7 : Part B – I - 2

This figure shows the results obtained for the statement “Vetting Inspections are affected by

external affairs.” Very interesting results were obtained for this statement. The number of

respondents with opposed views were found to be almost equal. Out of 100 percent (50)

officers. 0 percent (0) officers tick strongly disagree, 32 percent (16) officers tick disagree, 14

percent (7) officers tick indifferent, 36 percent (18) officers tick agree, rest 18 percent (9)

officers tick strongly agree.

 III - VESSEL INSPECTION QUESTIONNAIRE
I II III IV V

0%
0%

20%

34%

Figure4.8: Part B – I - 3

These were the results obtained for the statement “Vetting inspection questionnaire is

useful in an inspection.” Most respondents strongly agreed with the statement, others

expressed indifference. No one however disagreed. Out of 100 percent (50)officers. 0

percent (0) officers tick strongly disagree, 0 percent (0) officers tick disagree, 20percent (10)

officers tick indifferent, 34 percent (17) officers tick agree, rest 26 percent (13) officers tick

strongly agree.
 IV - GOALS OF VETTING INSPECTION
I II III IV V

0%2%

24%

34%

Figure4.9: Part B – I - 4

These were the results obtained for the statement “Vetting inspection is able to achieve their

goals.” Most agreed with statement. A substantial amount also expressed indifference. Out of

100 percent (50)officers. 0 percent (0) officers tick strongly disagree, 0 percent (0) officers

tick disagree, 24percent (12) officers tick indifferent, 34 percent (17) officers tick agree, rest

42 percent (21)officers tick strongly agree.

 V - INSPECTION VIOLATES REST HOURS
I II III IV V

2%
4%
18%

28%

Figure4.10: Part B – I - 5

These were the results obtained for the statement “Inspection prepartions violates STCW rest

hours and causes mental exhaustion.” The results obtained for this statement raised a real

concern which should be taken note of. Nearly half of the respondents agreed that

preparations hinder with the least amount of rest hours required by the STCW. Out of 100

percent (50)officers. 4 percent (2) officers tick strongly disagree, 2 percent (1) officers tick

disagree, 18 percent (9) officers tick indifferent, 28 percent (14) officers tick agree, rest 48

percent (24)officers tick strongly agree.

 VI - HELP PROVIDED BY SENIOR OFFICERS
I II III IV V

0%
4%
12%

52%

Figure4.11: Part B – I - 6

These were the results obtained for the statement “Senior officers provide adequate help.” A

little more than half the respondents agreed that they got the required aid from senior

officers,the numbers varying from Out of 100 percent (50)officers. 0 percent (0) officers tick

strongly disagree, 4 percent (2) officers tick disagree, 12percent (6) officers tick

indifferent, 52 percent (26) officers tick agree, rest 32 percent (16)officers tick strongly agree.
 VII - ZERO VETTING OPERATION TARGET IS
ACHIEVABLE
I II III IV V

2%

8%
20%

30%

Figure4.12: Part B – I - 7

These were the results obtained for the most important and probably the statement that is the

heart of this research. It reads “Zero vetting observation target is achievable.” A very

positive conclusion was drawn from analysing this graph. Out of 100 percent (50)

officers. 2 percent (1) officers tick strongly disagree, 8 percent (4) officers tick disagree, 20

percent (10) officers tick indifferent, 30 percent (15) officers tick agree, rest 40 percent (20)

officers tick strongly agree.

 VIII - VETTING INSPECTION PROCESS CAN BE
ENHANCED
I II III IV V

0%

28%

38%

Figure4.13: Part B – I - 8

These were the results obtained for the most important and probably the statement of this

research. It reads “VETTING INSPECTION PROCESS CAN BE ENHANCED.” A very

positive conclusion was drawn from analysing this graph. Out of 100 percent (50)

officers. 0 percent (0) officers tick strongly disagree, 0 percent (0) officers tick disagree, 28

percent (14) officers tick indifferent, 38 percent (19) officers tick agree, rest 34 percent (17)

officers tick strongly agree.

 SECTION B- PART II –I

REPETITIVE OBSERVATION

I - LSA/FFA EQUIP. ARE NOT IN ORDER

YES NO

44%

56%

Figure4.14: Part B – II – I - 1

These were the results obtained for the statement “LSA/FFA EQUIPMENTS ARE NOT IN

ORDER.” A little more than half the respondents not agreed that they got the required aid

from seniorofficers,the numbers varying from Out of 100 percent (50)officers. 44 percent

(22) officers tick yes, 56 percent (28) officers tick no.

 II - NAUT. PUBS. ARE NOT CORRECTED.
YES NO

30%

70%

Figure4.15: Part B – II - I - 2

These were the results obtained for the statement “NAUTICAL PUBLICATIONS ARE

NOT CORRECTED”. A majority of the respondents agreed that they got the

required aid from seniorofficers,the numbers varying from Out of 100 percent (50)officers.70

percent (35) officers tick yes, 30 percent (15) officers tick no.
 III - GARBAGE SEGREGATION IS NOT DONE.
YES NO

36%

64%

Figure4.16: Part B – II - I - 3

These were the results obtained for the statement “GARBAGE SEGREGATION IS NOT

DONE”. A majority of the respondents is fully agreed that they got the required aid

from seniorofficers,the numbers varying from Out of 100 percent (50)officers. 64 percent

(32) officers tick yes, 36 percent (18) officers tick no.

 IV - PAPER WORK NOT CARRIED OUT BY
SENIOR OFFICERS.
YES NO

46%

54%

Figure4.17: Part B – II - I - 4

These were the results obtained for the statement “ PAPER WORK NOT CARRIED OUT

BY SENIOR OFFICERS”. The majority of the respondents is agreed that they got

the required aid from seniorofficers,the numbers varying from Out of 100 percent

(50)officers. 54 percent (27) officers tick yes, 46 percent (23) officers tick no.
 V - GANGWAY SECURITY WATCH NOT
MAINTAINED PROPERLY
YES NO

42%

58%

Figure4.18: Part B – II - I - 5

These were the results obtained for the statement “GANGWAY SECURITY WATCH NOT

MAINTAINED PROPERLY”.A little more than half the respondents agreed that they got

the required aid from seniorofficers,the numbers varying from Out of 100 percent

(50)officers. 58 percent (29) officers tick yes, 42 percent (21) officers tick no.
 SECTION- B - PART –II – II

CAUSES FOR REPETITIVE OBSSERVATIONS

I - ARE OFFICERS COMPETENT ENOUGH TO

UNDERGO VETTING INSPECTIONS?
YES NO

16%

84%

Figure4.19: Part B – II - II - 1

These were the results obtained for the statement “ ARE OFFICERS COMPETENT

ENOUGH TO UNDERGO VETTING INSPECTIONS?” A majority of the

respondents agreed that they got the required aid from seniorofficers,the numbers varying

from Out of 100 percent (50)officers. 84 percent (42) officers tick yes, 16 percent (8)

officers tick no.

 II -IS ADEQUATE ASSISSTANCE PROVIDED
FROM SHORE.
YES NO

26%

74%

Figure4.20: Part B – II - II - 2

These were the results obtained for the statement “ IS ADEQUATE ASSISSTANCE

PROVIDED FROM SHORE?”A little more than half the respondents agreed that they

got the required aid from seniorofficers,the numbers varying from Out of 100 percent

(50)officers. 74 percent (37) officers tick yes, 26 percent (13) officers tick no.
 III -SHORTER VOYAGES CAUSE MULTIPLE
VETTING OBSEVATION?
YES NO

28%

72%

Figure4.21: Part B – II - II - 3

These were the results obtained for the statement “SHORTER VOYAGES CAUSE

MULTIPLE VETTING OBSERVATION”. A majority of the respondents agreed that they

got the required aid from seniorofficers,the numbers varying from Out of 100 percent

(50)officers. 72 percent (36) officers tick yes, 28 percent (14) officers tick no.
 IV - IS PROPER NOTICE GIVEN TO SEASTAFF
BEFORE AN INSPECTION?
YES NO

42%

58%

Figure4.22: Part B – II - II - 4

These were the results obtained for the statement “IS PROPER NOTICE GIVEN TO

SEASTAFF BEFORE AN INSPECTION”. A little more than half the respondents agreed

that they got the required aid from seniorofficers,the numbers varying from Out of 100

percent (50)officers. 58 percent (29) officers tick yes, 42 percent (21) officers tick no.
 V - IS CREW COMPETENCY A FACTOR FOR
VETTING OBSERVATION?
YES NO

40%

60%

Figure4.23: Part B – II - II - 5

These were the results obtained for the statement “ IS ORDER COMPETENCY A FACTOR

FOR VETTING OBSERVATION.” A little more than half the respondents agreed that

they got the required aid from seniorofficers,the numbers varying from Out of 100 percent

(50)officers. 60 percent (30) officers tick yes, 40 percent (20) officers tick no.
 SECTION – B - PART - II – III

SCOPE FOR ANY IMPROVEMENT

I - CAN PROPER TRAINING REDUCE THE

VETTING OBSERVATION?
YES NO

10%

90%

Figure4.24: Part B – II - III- 1

These were the results obtained for the statement “CAN PROPER TRAINING REDUCE

THE VETTING OBSERVATION?” almost all the respondents agreed that

they got the required aid from seniorofficers,the numbers varying from Out of 100 percent

(50)officers. 90 percent (45) officers tick yes, 10 percent (05) officers tick no.
 II - WIIL MENTORING SESSION WITH SENIOR
OFFICERS HELP JUNIOR OFFICERS COPE
BATTER WITH INSPECTIONS?
YES NO

28%

72%

Figure4.25: Part B – II - III- 2

These were the results obtained for the statement “ WILL METORING SESSION WITH

SENIOR OFFICERS HELP JUNIOR OFFICERS COPE BETTER WITH INSPECTIONS?”

A majority of the respondents agreed that they got the required aid from

seniorofficers,the numbers varying from Out of 100 percent (50)officers. 72 percent(36)

officers tick yes, 28 percent (14) officers tick no.

 III - SHOULDN'T CREW BE GIVEN TRAINING
TOO?
YES NO

36%

64%

Figure2.26: Part B – II - III- 3

These were the results obtained for the statement “SHOULDN‟T CREW BE GIVEN

TRAINING TOO?” A majority of the respondents agreed that they got the

required aid from seniorofficers,the numbers varying from Out of 100 percent (50)officers.

64 percent (32) officers tick yes, 36 percent (18) officers tick no.
 IV - MENTORING SESSION WITH VETTING
INSPECTORS WILL HELP SHIP STAFF BETTER
UNDERSTAND THE VETTING INSPECTION?
YES NO

34%

66%

Figure4.27: Part B – II - III- 4

These were the results obtained for the statement “ MENTORING SESSION WITH

VETTING INSPECTORS WILL HELP SHIP STAFF BETTER UNDERSTAND THE

VETTING INSPECTION?”A majority of the respondents agreed that they got

the required aid from seniorofficers,the numbers varying from Out of 100 percent

(50)officers. 66 percent (33) officers tick yes, 34 percent (17) officers tick no.
 V - FREQUENCY OF THE VETTING INSPECTIONS
SHOULD BE REDUCED.
YES NO

20%

80%

Figure4.28: Part B – II - III- 5

These were the results obtained for the statement “FREQUENCY OF THE VETTING

INSPECTIONS SHOULD BE REDUCED”. A majority of the respondents agreed that they

got the required aid from seniorofficers,the numbers varying from Out of 100 percent

(50)officers. 80 percent (40) officers tick yes, 20 percent (10) officers tick no.
 Chapter 5

INTRODUCTION:

The Conclusions and Recommendations section (Chapter V), inks the Results of Section (Chapter IV),

which is the questionnaire. This section also inks the conclusions from the analysis of the results

obtained from the questionnaire and then gives recommendations based on the analysis of the same.

The conclusion will cover four sections which deals the respondent‟s perception of Vetting Inspections

on-board tankers, how they are carried out and how to minimize observations. This section also

includes the interview sessions conducted with tanker Masters. Recommendations and ideas of the

respondents which were taken from the Questionnaire will be added in this session for the further

study in the future. The feedback and recommendations will be so presented, that, it may be of use to

tanker officers and Master‟s alike, shipping companies and other sea staff to have an in-depth analysis

and advisement on how to reduce vetting observations sighted by vetting officers on-board Tankers.

3.1 RESPONDENT’S PERCEPTION ABOUT VETTING INSPECTION CARRIED ON- BOARD

TANKERS.

This section contained eight questions whereby, the respondents have to choose any one option

ranging from strongly disagree, disagree, indifferent, agree and strongly agree as on the Likert

scale. Amongst all the candidates 10% of respondents (5) were indifferent , 46% (23) of the

respondents have agreed and 44% (22) have strongly agreed for the question which was whether the

Vetting inspection is important for proper operation of the vessel. We can conclude from the result

that a vetting inspection is important for proper operation of the vessel. With 32% (16) of respondents

having disagreed, 14% (7) expressing indifference , 36% (18) having agreed , 18% (9) of the
respondents having strongly agreed for the statement that ,Vetting inspections are affected by external

factors. It is safe to assume that inspections are indeed affected by external factors. Not out-rightly but

to an extent. The third statement which was whether, the Vessel inspection questionnaire is useful in

an inspection got an outstandingly positive response with about 46% (23) respondents having strongly

agreed , only 20 % ( 10) respondents were indifferent and 34 % ( 17) having agreed. From this we can

conclude that vessel inspection questionnaire is very useful for the officer‟s prior an inspection. The

next question put forth was whether a Vetting inspection was able to achieve its goals. Interestingly,

40% (20) strongly agreed, 34% (17) agreed and 24%(12) were indifferent while only 2 % (1)

disagreed. Respondents therefore agreed that these inspections do succeed. For the statement,

Inspection preparation violates STCW rest hours and causes mental exhaustion, 48% (24) have

strongly agreed 28% (14) have agreed 18% (9) were indifferent , 2 % (1) disagreed and 4% (2)

strongly disagreed. So we can say that, STCW rest/working hours schedule is often violated. The sixth

statement seeked to find if Senior officers provided adequate help. Respondents have disagreed with a

mere margin of 4% (2) , 6% (12) respondents have given a neutral opinion ,52% (26) respondents

have agreed for the subject and 32% (16) respondents have strongly agreed to it. From the view of the

respondents we can say that, senior officers on board are usually helpful to the other staff during

vetting inspection other than a few exceptional cases. For the next question which is the objective of

vetting inspection whether, Zero vetting observation target is achievable. Interestingly, 40% (20)

respondents have strongly agreed 30% (15) have agreed 8% (4) have disagreed only 2% (1)

respondents have strongly disagreed while another 20% (10) were indifferent. From here we can easily

say that, officers on-board have a fairly positive attitude of making the zero observations target

attainable. Last question of the section was, whether the Vetting inspection process could be enhanced.

38 % (19) respondents have agreed and34 % (17) respondents have strongly agreed and 28% (14)
respondents were indifferent agreed to the subject. None however, disagreed. The view thus is that, the

inspection can be enhanced for the better.

5.2RESPONDENT’S PERCEPTION ABOUT THE REPETITIVE OBSERVATIONS.

This section is of Yes/No type and where the respondents have to select one of either option

for the repetitive observations quoted in this session. The repetitive observations were taken

from all possible areas of shipboard work places such as deck , engine and galley. First

question which was put forth was , about the LSA/FFA equipments are not being in order. Out

of the total 56% (28) candidates responded negatively the rest of the 44% (22) accept that such

type of observations are repeated. Second statement is about Nautical publications not being

corrected /updated appropriately. About 70% (35) respondents have agreed to it and 30% (15)

disagreed. So, it is obvious that , such type of observations is repeated on board the ships.

Third question was about the Garbage segregation not being done. 64% (32) have agreed

whereas 36% (18) have disagreed to the subject. However, majority of the respondents have

agreed for the subject that it has been repeated. Respondents have truly acknowledged the next

question which was asked whether paper work was being carried out by senior officers in a

proper manner. They have agreed for the question with a margin of 54% (27) respondents have

agreed and only 46% (23) have disagreed to the same. Last question of this sub-division was

about Gangway security watch not maintained properly. Here again , 58% (29) respondents

have agreed with the subject and only 42% (21) have disagreed for the subject.

Next part under this section deals about asking the reasons for these observation on-

board tankers. Questions were put forth and the result was on the analysis made on their views.

First question was whether officers were competent enough to undergo vetting inspections.

84% (42) respondents have agreed and only 16%(8) have not agreed. It‟s very clear that , every
officer is ready to face the vetting inspection. Second question was asked Is adequate assistance

provided from shore. 74%(37) respondents have responded yes and remaining gave negative

for the question. For the next question , which was asked whether , Are shorter voyages

reason for vetting observations , 72%(36) respondents have said Yes and whereas , 28%(14)

have not agreed to for this as a reason for the vetting observation. So from this we can say

that , shorter voyages do affect the vetting observations. Next question was about whether

proper notice given to sea staff before an inspection. Margin for the result is more or less same

where the result says that, 58%(29) have agreed and 42%(21) have not agreed. Meaning

that, they do get proper and enough notice prior inspection. Last question was asked whether ,

Is crew competency a factor for vetting observation.60%(30) respondents have agreed that

crew competency is good and the remaining have not agreed for the subject with a very low

margin of 40%(20) respondents .

5.3 RESPONDENT’S PERCEPTION IN MINIMIZING THE VETTING OBSERVATIONS ON –

BOARD TANKERS.

Last section of this part covers in improvising the scenario of the title. The very first question

hits the mark with 90%(45) have agreed that proper trainings reduce the vetting observations.

Rest 10%(5) have not agreed for the subject . Second question inks about the mentoring

sessions with senior officers help junior officers. The respondents out of 100% , 72%(36)

have agreed that , mentoring sessions will help them out and the rest of the people have not

agreed to the solution, which is of about 36%(18). Fourth question is of asking whether , crew

should be given training. 64%(32) respondents have agreed whereas others have declined the

idea of the subject. Fourth question is about mentoring session with vetting inspector.

Considerable result has come out with 66%(33) respondents have agreed and remaining have
declined for the subject. Last question is about the frequency of vetting inspection to be

reduced. The result has hit the mark with 80%(40) have agreed to it and 20%( 10) have not

agreed to it.

5.4 RECOMMENDATION

After a detailed study of this research, we managed to come up with few recommendations that can help to
minimize the vetting observations on – board tankers . The recommendations are:

1. the number of sample should be increased rather than just a small group of respondent so that the data
obtained will
be much more details and understandable if any further study that are related to this project are going to be
carried out in the future.

2. With respect to vetting inspections , Adequate advice from senior officers to junior officers and complying
the STCW rest hour log maintains the capacity level of officers in maintaining their job description. Whereby ,
from shore side , vetting inspection can be still improved and the vessel can get zero observation if
questionnaire is well followed.

3. If nautical publications are updated properly and garbage segregation is done accordingly , there are high
chance of getting zero observations. Provided paper work and gangway watch to be maintained in compliance
with company‟s rules and regulations.

4. Though officers are well competent and ready enough to face the vetting inspections , shorter voyages
remains a big puzzle to them and hence , the concerned department of the tanker organization should make
one long voyage to the specified vessel which will have vetting inspection , so that with ample time , it can
rectify the defects and make the vessel seaworthy and business-worthy and loss of customers can be prevented
therewith.
5. With the findings , proper training to crew and officers along with frequent mentoring session with senior
officers and vetting inspectors , the company and the floating staff can achieve their goal and the subject with
high rate.
 REFERENCES

Shell Vetting Guide.

ISGOTT (5th Edition 2006).

PETRONAS Vetting Manual.

Dictionary of Shipping Terms 5th Edition 2008 – Alan and David Branch

Vetting Inspection Questionnaire.

British Petroleum Vetting Booklet.

OCIMF

www.google.com

www.wikipedia.com
Appendix
 INTRODUCTION

This questionnaire is aimed to collect the information regarding the research below:

A STUDY ON VETTING INSPECTIONS AND THE KEY CAUSES FOR VETTING

OBSERVATIONS.

This questionnaire contains three parts which will comprise of the following:

 Background profile

 Research questions

 Recommendations.

The researchers are trying to find the difficulties faced by Officers in adopting proper methods to
minimise vetting observations. The study also aims to find the actions necessary to gain maximum
experience from these inspections and find out how to maximize the vessel‟s performance to improve
the safe operation of the ship.

Please answer all questions. Your feedback is highly appreciated and will be kept confidential!

Thank you!
 QUESTIONNAIRE
TITLE OF RESEARCH

A STUDY ON VETTING INSPECTIONS AND THE KEY CAUSES FOR VETTING

OBSERVATIONS.

SECTION A: BACKGROUND
Instruction: Please tick (/) your answer as appropriate.

1) What rank do you hold as an officer?

Fourth officer Third officer
Second officer

2) How many years have you been at sea ?

1-5 years 5-10 years
10 – 15 years

3) How much tanker experience do you hold?

1-5 years 5-10 years
10 – 15 years

4) In your years of sailing how many vetting inspections have you gone through?
1-5 5-10 5- 10
10 – 15

5) Area of sailing?
International voyage Coastal voyage
International & coastal
 QUESTIONNAIRE
SECTION: B
PART : 1

Instruction: Please circle (o) your answer according to the scales provided.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Disagree Indifferent Agree Strongly agree

I. Vetting inspection is important for proper operation of the vessel 1 2 3 4 5

II. Vetting inspections are affected by external factors 1 2 3 4 5

III. Vessel inspection questionnaire is useful in an inspection 1 2 3 4 5

IV. Vetting inspection are able to achieve their goals 1 2 3 4 5

V.Inspection prep violates STCW rest hours and causes 1 2 3 4 5

Mental exhaustion.

VI.Senior officers provide adequate help1 2 3 4 5

VII. Zero vetting observation target is achievable 1 2 3 4 5

VIII. Vetting inspection process can be enhanced 1 2 3 4 5

 PART : 2

1. LSA/FFA equipments are not in order. YES NO

2. Nautical publications are not corrected /updated. YES NO

3. Garbage segregation is not done. YES NO

4. Paper work not carried out by senior officers. YES NO

5. Gangway security watch not maintained properly. YES NO

II

1. Are officers competent enough to undergo vetting inspections? YES NO

2. Is adequate assistance provided from shore? YES NO

3. Are shorter voyages reason for vetting observations? YES NO

4. Is proper notice given to seastaff before an inspection? YES NO

5. Is crew competency a factor for vetting observation? YES NO

 III

1. Can proper trainings reduce the vetting observations? YES NO

2. Will mentoring sessions with senior officers help junior YES NO

Officer‟s cope better with inspections?

3. Shouldn‟t crew be given training to? YES NO

4. Mentoring session with vetting inspector‟s will help ship YES NO

staff better understand the vetting inspection.

5. Frequency of the vetting inspection should be reduced? YES NO

SECTION C: RECOMMENDATIONS & IDEAS

Any recommendations & ideas that would you would like to suggest might greatly help the research
meet its goals.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________