220 - 11/01 - Cargo Securing Inspection Results - Paris MOU
Further to our Bulletin 176 - 02/01 - Concentrated Inspection Campaign on Cargo Securing, organised by the Paris MOU, a number of inspections were carried out on vessels subject to Port State Control inspection between March-May 2001. Lashing equipment was verified for compliance with SOLAS VI/5.6 and/or VII/6.6
The results highlighted the poor quality of the lashing material in use; lashings not carried out in accordance with the lashing plan, or the lashing plan not conforming to the Cargo Securing Manual. In addition to the usual PSC inspection, checks were carried out on specific items such as the Cargo Securing Manual (CSM), the lashing plan, the cargo deck area (deck fittings), cargo stowage and security, and the quality of the lashing materials in use. A total of 1072 inspections were made, with 16 detentions re cargo securing.
The results indicated the following:
- 31% of vessels had moderate to poor quality lashing materials, particularly twistlocks.
- 10% of vessels had lashing plans either not in accordance with the CSM and/or the cargo was not lashed as per lashing plan/CSM.
- 2% of vessels were not carrying an approved CSM.
- Authorities (Classification Societies) approving the CSM not always control if all cargoes that can be carried are included in the CSM.
The campaign highlighted the fact that the lack of maintenance and use of poor quality lashing materials is still common practice in too many instances. The Paris MOU is set to continue targeting ships carrying cargo requiring securing for both the quality of their lashing materials and adherence to CSM lashing plans. As a further check on operational safety, these cargo vessels will be included in the next Concentrated Inspection Campaign on compliance with the ISM Code in 2002.
These pictures were taken by the Club’s Inspectors, during the last year and depict the standard of lashing equipment and deck fittings that can be found, even on Member’s own vessels.
In the last 10 years lashing failure has cost the Association some 19$m and is the second highest contributory cause of large cargo claims. What is not known is the cost to members of the loss of goodwill with their clients.
Members are advised to ensure that their vessels have adequate lashings of the appropriate standard, as laid down in their Class-approved Cargo Securing Manuals, and that damaged lashing materials are either repaired or replaced accordingly.
Source of information: UK P&I Loss Prevention Dept. Paris MOU (www.parismou.org )