Debriefing Checklist

System LFMS Document No.: 06.61.11 Revision: 02 Date: 2011-03-30 Prepared: MP Approved: MNG / THW

Reference to LK LFMS 06.07.02 Debriefing of Senior officers

Name of Seafarer Inocencio O. Tagab

Position Captain

Last Contract period Gitta kosan 19.08.2011 26.03.2012 Comments from Seafarer Safety equipment onboard are well maintained and update. Safety culture onboard well observed.

Bullet points Safety issues 1. Safety equipment 2. Safety culture

Comments from LK

Regarding crewchanged, Shipboard management/ Generally we have been very before the vessel suffered a Company issues pleased with the cooperation blackout i already adviced 1. Co-operation on board with Capt. Tagab during his manila office and 2. Co-operation with LK recent period onboard Gitta Copenhagen LKFM MP FM departments kosan. regarding the plan of 3. LK Commercial dept We have also visited the crewchanged. When vessel input vessel several times in 2012 arrived at Rotterdam 16th 4. JL Purchase due to various engine March , i also informed VM department problems. Our impression Michael Guhle regarding the from the visits onboard have matter, but due to the limited been that there have been time of the repair at kept a good a friendly Rotterdam, i did not adviced management atmosphere Manila office to send our with a good cooperation reliever in that between the different place.Unexpectedly,there departments. was an electrical We have however had two complication thus the recent episode that gives vessels repair was delayed. room for improvement. 0n March 24,supposedly the last day of repair, another fault alarm was occurred 1. During recent stay in thus the vessels departure Rotterdam.Capt was further delayed. The Tagab arranged crew next target date of vessels changed without departure per VM information coordinating this was on the 26th pm.So i properlywith VM advice immediately Manila

Chapter - 6

Uncontrolled when printed

Page 1 of 6

Debriefing Checklist
System LFMS Document No.: 06.61.11 Revision: 02 Date: 2011-03-30 Prepared: MP Approved: MNG / THW

department, this cause departure of the to be delayed. It is important that decision that will affectthe vessel scheduleis always cleared with the office. Please see attached mail reference to this incident. 2. After change of CE there have been conflict issues in the engine room, and the new C/E and 2nd have not been able to work together as a team. In this situation we would have liked to see some intervention from the Captain side and he should also informed the office about this as it affect the safe operation of the vessel. We would like to wish Capt Tagab a very nice holiday and look forward to see him again on one of our vessel. Technical/Navigational issues 1. Ship specific 2. Planned Maintenace System Our target of max 6% overdue job in sertica has been met through the whole contract. Job overdue: September 2011= 1.01% October 20111.64% November 2011= 0.96% December 2011 3.10% January 2012 = 3.12% February 2012 = 3.18% Well done

office with CC to LKFM MP to proceed their plan of crewchanged .But on the 25th am,the alarm problem was rectified. Supt Samuelsen decided to schedule the vessel to depart, but since theres a schedule of crewchange at Rotterdam, the plan was to have a crewchange at anchorage to avoid further delays of the vessel.Upon knowing that the cost of transport to the anchorage is high, the VM decided to stay alongside and wait the reliever.On 26th early morning, a faulty alarm occurs again, which the C/E cannot trace the problem. The attending supt again requested a technician ashore which lasted until 7pm on the 26th. Where vessel departure time is 2000hrs.The master handover lasted until 7pm on the same day. In this matter i think i do my best to coordinate and communicate to all parties regarding scheduling. 2.With reference to the changed of new C/E, we all know that new c/e londres take charge the vessel on March 1,which he was in the status of familiazation of the main engine.Before arrival Rotterdam 11th march some feedback that there is no good working relationship. between 2/E and the C/E. Immediately I called up the attention of c/e londres and investigate the feedback.C/E

Chapter - 6

Uncontrolled when printed

Page 2 of 6

Debriefing Checklist
System LFMS Document No.: 06.61.11 Revision: 02 Date: 2011-03-30 Prepared: MP Approved: MNG / THW

confessed that 2/e empasis is not following his instructions and not cooperating with the engine works.By then i called up also the attention of 2/e empasis regarding the situation, he reason out that c/e has no knowledge in the engine. i instructed him to follow the c/e instruction as he is his superior but he declined.At first i did not inform to VM the situation because i tried my best to settle them.But still the situation did not improve, At the time of blackout incident i told VM thru telcon that the two engine officers are not having good working relationship.Further told him that when he visit the vessel at repair yard he must talked personally both engineers to settle down the misunderstandings.

Re. Technical issues: The vessel KPI for the month of December to March had a bit increased due to weather condition. Vetting/Internal/External audit performance issues 1. LK internal inspection 2. Vetting statistics 3. Good/bad results during contract 4. Port State Control Several vessel visit report are enclosed. SIRE / Total vetting inspection in September 2011-7 remarks where of 5 were ship specifics. SIRE / BP vetting inspection in November 2011 5 remarks whereof 1 ship ship

Chapter - 6

Uncontrolled when printed

Page 3 of 6

Debriefing Checklist
System LFMS Document No.: 06.61.11 Revision: 02 Date: 2011-03-30 Prepared: MP Approved: MNG / THW

specific SIRE/ Statoil vetting Inspection in November 2011 10 remarks whereof 6 were ship specific s. January 2012 Cepsa vetting Through hardwork and inspection in Algeciras 3 cooperation,no crew related remarks whereof 0 were remarks was observed crew related. January 2012 CDI vetting inspection in Antwerp 14 remarks , 4 crew related and 1 major observation. March 2012 SIRE/ Repsol vetting inspection in Botlek 2 remarks whereof 0 were crew related. No PSC inspection in periof 5. Port State Control Yes we have an Initial PSC inspection in Rotterdam last March 17,2012 which NO Observation found. PSC inspection report was reported to LKFM HSSEQ and downloaded to SAFIR Bullet points Training issues 1. Specific needs identified 2. General needs identified LK LFMS issues 1. Suggestion for changes Comments from LK Capt Tagabshould attend the LK Leadership and Management Course and the LK Cargo Handliing Course at next convenient time. Comments from Seafarer ok

Chapter - 6

Uncontrolled when printed

Page 4 of 6

Debriefing Checklist
System LFMS Document No.: 06.61.11 Revision: 02 Date: 2011-03-30 Prepared: MP Approved: MNG / THW

2. Gaps identified

Miscellaneous 1. Working hours onboard 2. Other items

The number of rest hours violations reported from Gitta kosanis very and focus should in the future be on planning ahead in order to comply with the regulations Consideration should be made if watch schedule could be somehow changed and breaks of 1 hrs should be avoided. Futher could any jobs be made by someone else.

With regards to rest hour violation,We the management onboard are trying to avoid the violation of the rules with proper work planning, but due to vessel voyages status which is too short (32hrs ) violation is unavoidable. To be able to comply with the rules, may i suggest that additional crew is needed.

Concluding remarks

Chapter - 6

Uncontrolled when printed

Page 5 of 6

Debriefing Checklist
System LFMS Document No.: 06.61.11 Revision: 02 Date: 2011-03-30 Prepared: MP Approved: MNG / THW

________________________ Signed LK Representative

_________________________ Signed Seafarer

Chapter - 6

Uncontrolled when printed

Page 6 of 6