|
Small Vessel Code Group Meeting 15 (First Review)
Attendees
15.1 Chairman Opening Remarks
15.1.1 The Chairman welcomed members to the first review group of the small code and informed them of any apologies received. They were Susan Rooke, MCA and Dave Cuthbert, Industry. He then introduced first time attendees Stefan Fuczek and Sarah White. It was explained that Sarah completed two weeks work experience within the Fishing Safety Branch and that she was in attendance because of the work that she did for the group. 15.2 Note of Last Meeting and Actions Arising
15.2.1 The Chairman asked if members were content with the last meeting note. No comments were received and the minutes accepted as a true record.
15.2.2 Jim Evans raised concerns over Action A from the last meeting and that there are still no waterproof VHF radios available for fishermen. The Chairman stated that this would be looked into and that his concerns would be passed onto the relevant branch.
ACTION A - MCA (Neil Peacey) to chase issues raised with VHF radios and them being waterproof with MCA Radio Branch.
15.2.3 With regards to Action K, for MCA to produce an MGN that clarifies problems with new builds to Sea Fish, MCA stated that they are awaiting advice from Sea Fish and that this was also an action in the Technical sub-group of FISG.
15.3 Terms of Reference (Paper 15.2)
15.3.1 The Chairman informed members of the proposed Terms of Reference for the Group to adopt. Concerns were raised by Chris Venmore that the proposal contains “Fitness of Vessel” and that he would oppose the paper.
15.3.2 The Group agreed that the words “Fitness of Vessel” be replaced with “ a simple checklist”. It was also agreed to remove the words “… that result in it being more user friendly or straightforward” from the Terms. The Chairman agreed that the new revised Terms of Reference be sent out with the Draft meeting note. ACTION B - MCA (Neil Peacey) to amend the Terms of Reference to the agreed wording and send out with DRAFT Meeting Note
15.4 MSN 1756 & Amendment (Paper 15.3.1)
15.4.1 The Chairman introduced Neil Peacey to take this paper forward. The Group was asked to look at the amalgamated Code and provide comments on the suggested format. It was agreed that the Group discussed any major problems with the Code within the forum and write into the MCA with any further comments. ACTION C - INDUSTRY to provide any further comments in writing on any other concerns they have with the Code.
15.4.2 Arthur Copeland raised a concern with Paragraph 5.2 on Construction Standards and registration. The Chairman informed the Group that this had also been raised in the last Technical meeting. Discussions took place as to vessels being able to register without any Sea Fish certification. The Chairman asked the Group whether they would agree to new vessels needing a certificate to be able to register their vessel. Yvonne Dawkins stated that there are no regulations to enforce this matter.
15.4.3 It was agreed that MCA would investigate their powers, but with no authority to take this forward at present a timescale could not be given. Duncan MacInnes informed the Group that there has been an increase in small vessels being built in Iceland and that vessels are built to much higher standards.
15.4.4 Yvonne Dawkins asked the Group for their agreement for RSS to start asking for certificates when vessels register but that they can not enforce this. It was also stated that Registration regulations are being looked at over the forthcoming months. ACTION D - RSS (Yvonne Dawkins) to start asking for Construction Certificates when any new vessels are registered.
15.4.5 Bill Wood asked the Group to agree that Sea Fish rules on construction standards be enforced and not recommended. Arthur Copeland stated that Stability could not be made compulsory, as they do not have the power. Bill Wood informed the Group that these recommendations were acceptable to Industry 2 years ago and that it included outfit.
15.4.6 The Chairman asked the Group whether the requirements in the Code should remain as recommendations. Sea Fish stated that it could be made compulsory for vessels to comply with the construction standards. George Traves backed this suggestion by informing the Group that most fishermen want to be right and comply with the Code. John Kearney asked MCA whether they could stop fishermen from fishing under the current rules. The Group was informed that this was a DEFRA issue. Yvonne Dawkins stated that if vessels were not operating safely then they could take away registration and their licences.
15.4.7 The Chairman asked the Group whether the action was to replace “recommendation” with “compulsory” for all sections, apart from Stability, to Sea Fish rules. Jim Evans asked MCA to look at certifying standards. Arthur Copeland stated that Sea Fish had revised its rules once the 12-15 metre sector was included in the Small Code.
15.4.8 The Group discussed various means of obtaining registration with second hand vessels. Chris Venmore stated that the more MCA regulate the more problems that arise. It was also stated that Industry would not have any problem with the “new” rules applying to new vessels but not for existing vessels. The Chairman asked the Group whether this item should go back to FISG for their approval in November.
15.4.9 Jim Evans and George Traves stated that FISG had looked at this 2 years ago and they decided that the construction rules should be compulsory and not recommendations. The Chairman asked the Group what timescale they would be looking for to implement this change. The Group decided that this change should happen as soon as possible.
15.4.10 The Chairman concluded the discussion by reiterating that the MCA would amend the Code by removing recommendations for Construction Standards and replacing it with compulsory standards except for stability. ACTION E - Sea Fish to produce a revised version of their Construction Standards where all sections except that of Stability are mandatory.
15.4.11 Chris Venmore stated that the proposed combined Annex 1 was not required and that the checklists should remain as one per page for simplicity. William Farquhar raised concerns on the over 12m checklists by stating that equipment needs to be MCA approved as per the Collision Regulations. The Chairman agreed to modify the checklists taking into account the Collision Regulations for over 12m vessels. ACTION F - MCA (FSB) to amend over 12m Checklists taking into account Collision Regulations.
15.5 Sector Managers View (Paper 15.3.2)
15.5.1 The Chairman introduced Richard Newell to take this paper forward. Richard Newell ran through the paper asking for any comments on the suggested changes taking from comments from Sector Managers.
15.5.2 Chris Venmore raised that most vessels carry an anchor of some kind and that it was common sense. Hugh Allen gave an example of an under 10m Trawler not having an anchor on the vessel and agreed that an anchor on the checklist would be beneficial for the fishermen. The Group also agreed that if gas were used on the vessel then a 'fit for purpose' gas detector would be required. ACTION G - MCA (FSB) to amend Checklists to include an Anchor that is fit for purpose.
ACTION H - MCA (FSB) to include gas detectors in Guidance to fishermen at the back of the Code.
15.5.3 Richard Newell stated that the carriage of Fire Extinguishers needs to be simplified in the checklists. The Group agreed for this to be clarified in the Guidance at the back of the Code. Industry asked the Chairman whether the MCA had any influence in the new colours of the Fire Extinguishers. ACTION I - MCA (FSB) to include Guidance on Fire Extinguishers in the back of the Code.
15.5.4 A discussion broke out with Alan Lander and Chris Venmore stating their concern with the pleasure sector and that fishermen will take no more as the lack of regulation on pleasure craft could lead to someone being killed. The Chairman stated that this was not the forum to discuss this issue but their comments would be passed on to the relevant MCA branch. ACTION J - MCA (FSB) to forward comments made by Chris Venmore and Alan Lander to the relevant branch of the MCA
15.5.5 The Group decided that the bilge alarm on decked vessels should be audible as well as visual. Richard Newell continued down his list and stated that Risk Assessments should be written. It was discussed that any vessels that operated single handily need not perform a risk assessment. There was slight confusion in the Group when it actually came to the amount of crew that were needed before a risk assessment is required to be written.
ACTION K - MCA (FSB) to include Bilge Alarms be demonstrated audible in Guidance to fishermen at the back of the Code
15.5.6 With regards to RSS insisting on vessels being inspected on change of ownership, Yvonne Dawkins stated that they cannot do this. The Chairman informed the Group that the MCA are currently drafting a letter for RSS to send out to new owners so that they know which regulations are applicable to them. Yvonne Dawkins stated that RSS know nothing of this letter and asked the Chairman to notify RSS of any potential changes. ACTION L - MCA (FSB) liase with Yvonne Dawkins about providing guidance to owners on registering their vessel.
15.5.7 The Group also discussed and agreed for the Safety Courses to be included in the back of the Code under Guidance. With respect to one of the issues suggested by the Sector Managers, Chris Venmore raised that the wording in the paper was disgraceful. Richard Newell reiterated that these words were not his and that they actually came from a fishermen. ACTION M - MCA (FSB) to include Safety Courses in the Guidance to Fishermen at the back of the Code.
15.6 Operations View (Paper 15.3.3)
15.6.1 Caroline Raeburn introduced the paper to the Group and stated that these views were drawn up from all involved in Fishing. She stated that the lists attached to the paper represented all vessels that have not yet been inspected and that this was an ongoing project between Operations and Fishing Safety Branch.
15.6.2 The Group started to look through the lists and commented that some vessels that they know of that appear on the list had in-fact been inspected. Caroline Raeburn asked the Group for their co-operation and help in finding these vessels by emailing her any changes. ACTION N - INDUSTRY to supply in writing any vessels that they know of that have been inspected to Caroline Raeburn (02380 329549 or email)
15.7 Surveyors View (Paper 15.3.4)
15.7.1 Caroline Raeburn took this paper forward and stated that Fishing Vessel Surveyors have taken a step back from the under 15m inspections. Coastguard Sector Managers have responsibility for inspecting small vessels and that they can call on support from FV Surveyors when or if required. She informed the Group that one of the recommendations made in the paper had already been discussed and agreed. The Group was also informed that due to the Solway Harvester recommendations many vessels would be boarded by the MCA rib more frequently. The Chairman concluded by asking William Wood if he had any further comments on this issue of which there was none.
15.8 Industry View (Oral Report Paper 15.3.5)
15.8.1 The Chairman invited comments from the floor as to regards their views on the Small Code. William Farquhar raised concerns that the 12 – 15m checklists were not consulted on with Industry like the checklists on the Under 12m vessels. He confirmed that Industry were under the impression that there would be further consultation with them regarding checklists for vessels between 12-15 metres. Ian Balgowan stated that he appreciated Bill’s comments, and that he personally did not trust the MCA as if there was something introduced in the 12-15m checklist it would promulgate down to the smaller vessels.
15.8.2 Jim Evans stated that the 1975 Rules no longer apply to vessels in the 12-15m region. Bill Wood suggested that the MCA should look at operating areas of fishing vessels instead of having the checklists for different lengths and builds of vessels. The requirement for life saving appliances should be based on area of operation, not length as some new vessels under 10m are going further out than before. Caroline Raeburn backed this suggesting by informing the Group that the Harmonisation of the Codes was looking at areas of risk rather than the length of vessel. The Chairman agreed that the MCA would look into this and whether this change in the checklists would have to go back to Parliament for approval. Discussions took place over this subject and the Group agreed that this would be put to FISG in November for their comments.
ACTION O - MCA (FSB) to produce a paper to FISG 56 that outlines the discussions on checklists being changed to area of operations.
15.9 MAIB Views (Paper 15.3.6)
15.9.1 Cliff Brand was introduced to the Group to take this paper forward. He ran through the paper that was put to the Group and stated that many items in the paper were being dealt with at the Stability Group as the MAIB have strong concerns over small vessel stability.
15.9.2 MAIB confirmed that they would like to see a single checklist per vessel but that there should be more thought put into the checklists and some kind of guidance put into the Code on Risk Assessment. It was also raised that the MCA should hold a written record of Self Certification so that they know who has complied with the requirement for self certification in the code. Cliff Brand agreed with Bill Wood’s comment regarding that the checklists should relate to area’s of operation rather than the size of the vessel.
15.9.3 Jim Evans raised that if a 12-15m vessel has complied to IMO regulations then there was no problem with that vessel’s stability. Richard Newell asked MAIB whether most accidents were due to inherited stability or the loading of vessels. Cliff Brand informed the Group that MAIB were concerned with all stability issues as a whole.
15.9.4 Chris Venmore informed the Group that there was a study undertaken by the late Chris Tucker that proved it was not possible to format suitable stability for small vessels. Jim Evans questioned this statement by stating that the Group that was involved in the project, looked at Stability extensively and that it was the built in margins that could not be agreed but there was no argument against the need for stability.
15.9.5 The Chairman asked the Group what the MCA could do to simplify stability for the small vessels. William Farquhar raised that MAIB have raised concerns over stability and that an agreement in FISG 51, MCA would continue to ask for stability criteria for all vessels between 12-15m LOA vessels. The Chairman referred the Group to the tabled fax that was sent in by Macduff Shipyards Limited that initially highlighted this area and stated that there was no statutory force to enforce this.
15.9.6 Jim Evans informed the Group that MCA, in their wisdom, genuinely forgot this agreement at FISG 51. The Chairman asked the Group how we could incorporate this into the Code. It was agreed that existing vessels between 12-15m LOA have stability criteria already as per IMO regulations and that any new vessel in this length range must have some stability criteria. The Chairman agreed that the MCA could change the Code so that it is mandatory for new vessels to have stability criteria. It was also agreed that for any vessels being flagged in between these lengths should have criteria aswell. ACTION P - MCA (FSB) to amend Code for vessels between 12m (RL) and 15m (LOA) to have stability requirements on New vessels. Existing vessels comply with 1975 rules and therefore have stability criteria.
15.9.7 Chris Venmore asked whether this would fall to smaller vessels and would this involve an inspection. It was discussed that this would not be mandatory for vessels under 12m registered length and that vessels between 12 RL and 15m LOA already have the criteria as they were governed by the 1975 safety provisions until the change to the code.
15.9.8 The Group agreed to amend the Code to reflect the stability issues raised for vessels between 12-15m LOA. The Chairman raised that the Stability Group were tasked to look at small vessel stability and asked the Group whether they would agree for the research project to concentrate on vessels lower than 12metres. Chris Venmore stated that he may not accept as it was due to the overeloading of vessels and not when the vessel was built. He concluded by saying that this should be covered by training and not more legislation. Alan Lander informed the Group that the project should go ahead.
15.10 Helpline View (Paper 15.3.7)
15.10.1 The Chairman ran through the paper highlighting to the Group the main queries that the helpline was receiving and stated that they are currently inserting a tracking system of enquiries so that a database could be put together of common areas of concern.
15.10.2 The Group agreed that there should be some guidance about the Safety Awareness Courses being placed in the Code.
15.11 Fishing Vessel Training (Paper 15.4)
15.11.1 The Chairman explained that Roger Towner who wrote the paper was not in attendance and that any comments received would be forwarded to him. Chris Venmore stated that the current courses are not suitable for small single handed fishermen. Caroline Raeburn did not agree with this statement and informed the Group that many GTA’s made efforts to find out how many single handed fishermen were in the room and tailored the course to suit them.
15.11.2 The Chairman stated that if the MCA created another course then it would cause confusion within the fishing industry. Jim Evans replied saying that the idea of an extra course for these fishermen was good but logistically not viable.
15.12 Vessel Checklist (Paper 15.5)
15.12.1 The Chairman introduced Steve Dexter to the Group to take this paper forward. The Group was taken through the paper and was informed that since the Risk Assessment Working Group met, the FSA branch of the MCA had developed three ideas. Steve Dexter discussed these ideas and showed them to the Group.
15.12.2 The Group was also informed that Alan Piggott from NFFO and Alan Dean were currently going through the Sea Fish Folder and taking bits that apply to small vessels and possibly producing another document for the next Risk Assessment Working Group. Steve Dexter stated that the format and information contained in the possible new folder was dependant on knowing what the ruling was on the Margeretha Maria case on shared fishermen.
15.12.3 The Chairman informed the Group that this would need to go higher for any legislation to change and that he could not specify a timescale. After several discussions that related to earlier discussions in the day it was agreed that the Risk Assessment sector in the Code remain as it was.
15.13 Agree Report to FISG 56 (Item 15.6)
15.13.1 The Chairman asked the Group to consider a report to FISG 56 and stated that the MCA would draft a report to FISG and send it out to members for comment before submitting. Jim Evans explained that at the present time we were back to where we were 2 years ago. Richard Newell asked the Group when a new draft of the revised Code of Practice should be sent out. It was agreed that the draft of the revised Code be sent out when all comments had been received from Industry. ACTION Q - MCA (FSB) to Draft a report to FISG 56 and send out with Draft Code to all attendees after comments.
15.14 Any Other Business and Date of Next Meeting (Item 15.7)
15.14.1 The Chairman asked the Group whether anyone would like to raise any further items for discussion. Bill Wood stated that the Group had not discussed Fitness of Vessel. Neil Peacey informed the Group that this was actually covered under Paper 15.5 and that the Risk Assessment Working Group was looking at this for all vessels.
15.14.2 There was no other items raised. The Chairman asked the Group to consider a date for the next meeting. The Group agreed that they should reconvene in January 2004 and that maybe a back to back meeting with the Technical Group would be better for logistics.
15.14.3 The Chairman thanked all for attending and thanked Neil Peacey and Stefan Fuczek for taking the minutes of the meeting.
Neil Peacey |