I am really surprised at Royal Caribbean ......rotted life vests?

The requirements are spelled out thru various regulations and industry standards. The ship is responsible for maintaining compliance, we come aboard to check and verify. There should be a officer designated for inspecting and verifying maintenance done to the equipment. But when you are too close to it, complacency sets in and the best way to spot deficiencies is with a fresh set of eyes.

RCCL could could have a safety team that rotates between the fleet that does thier own inspections and assists in equipment overhaul or major maintenance.

The CG is to small to even think about doing any type of embided system. I can't remember the last average but we have over 100,000 commercial vessels entering and exiting ports every day.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

very interesting thread!

For a cargo ship it's probably costly to have to stay in port for an extra day when they want to sail, but IMHO cruise ships are special. Thousands of passengers demanding OBC and free cruises, and some of them will be interviewed on TV about narrowly escaping a disaster. I always am amused when folks think that "cruise ships are special". When the value of the cargo on a large container ship approaches the hundreds of millions of dollars that the cruise ship cost to build, and today's business philosophy of "just in time inventory", demurrage (the payment to the shipper for delays) can run to millions of dollars per day, and have a ripple effect through the economy.

 

Again, I don't exactly know what happens during an inspection. But I can imagine that there's a list of 1000 things inspectors can check. And I can also very well understand that on any ship, at least 40 of those are not 100% OK and it's not even possible to achieve 100% without replacing half the passengers with more crew. Of which one would be responsible for preventing ceiling panels from falling on the floor which could make the captain trip over them while trying to reach the bridge in an emergency. Not sure what you're saying here. Shipboard inspections by the assigned crew are not done all at once like a PSC inspection, but is spread out over a month's time, so a far greater amount of time, man hour wise, is spent on routine inspections. Things that are noted as deficient are either corrected using onboard spares, or a priority requisition is placed for immediate delivery. Very often, to use your somewhat tilted example, all 1000 items will be found to be 100%, both in routine inspections and in PSC inspections. To continue from my experience, the NCL US flag cruise ships in Hawaii have to meet the stricter USCG regulations for passenger vessels, which includes a mandatory quarterly inspection (rather than the random, typically once a year PSC inspection of foreign ships). In 4 years of operation, or 16 quarterly inspections, the Pride of Aloha never received an "835" (the USCG form reporting an inspection deficiency). So, even on a cruise ship, 100% compliance is the norm.

 

(this is where I look at you to see if these numbers make any sense. I'll continue as if you're not shaking your head in dispair)

 

And then, one of those 40 items is actually checked and not found to be 100% OK, but 80%. Coinciding with a grumpy inspector, or one whose claim to fame will be that "his" ship was on the news in 2017. In a lot of threads I'm told "you can't do that, think about the ambulance chasers", but this is a serious risk as well. There are no "my ship" for USCG inspectors, while you get to see familiar faces over time, there is rotation among the inspectors, the same team is not assigned the same ship every time, and for foreign flag PSC inspections, these can be done at any port, so consecutive inspections can be in different USCG districts. Even given what I said above about achieving 100% on inspections, there is no real "shame" or "stigma" assigned if a deficiency is found. Things break, and can break between the last routine inspection and the PSC inspection, and the inspectors know this. The only real crime that will set an inspector off is trying to cover up something, or "blowing smoke up his butt".

 

That's why I said that RC should actually pay USCG for horizontal oversight (which would be salary + an inside cabin + food) RC could prevent big problems by paying to find smaller ones that can be handled more easily. In this case, after one lifejacket seemed bad, having a week to find out the percentage of lifejackets that needs replacing, and another month to find a supplier that can't take advantage of a ship that cannot sail. USCG could simply hire more people just for the cruise industry. One problem with this scenario is that you've now hired extra inspectors, what do you do with them when they are not needed, or do you just pay them a full day's wage just to stretch the job out over several days. The other, major, problem is that since the cruise line is now paying the inspectors salary, he/she is no longer a disinterested third party.

 

Mutatis mutandis for USPH inspections. Having an OK immediately after installing a new dishwasher, instead of hoping the inspector likes it must bring peace of mind. Having 27 broken tiles in the galley is not exactly as it should be, but here's the official statement by USPH that replacing them can wait until the new ovens are installed in May except for the 8 tiles near the door that actually pose a threat.

Again, you run into not only conflict of interest if the cruise line is paying for the person inspecting, but you also, as Arthur say, relying on the same set of eyes. At NCL, we did a weekly USPH inspection of the entire ship. Areas were broken down (main galley, MDR, specialty galleys, provisions, pools, AC, kids corner, etc.) and one supervisor from that area (old eyes) would be paired with a supervisor from another rotating department (new eyes), so that the department personnel gained an insight into their operation from someone outside, each and every week.

Fascinating thread. Ty for all the expert analysis! Got me really wondering how the final report will read.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Again, you run into not only conflict of interest if the cruise line is paying for the person inspecting, but you also, as Arthur say, relying on the same set of eyes. At NCL, we did a weekly USPH inspection of the entire ship. Areas were broken down (main galley, MDR, specialty galleys, provisions, pools, AC, kids corner, etc.) and one supervisor from that area (old eyes) would be paired with a supervisor from another rotating department (new eyes), so that the department personnel gained an insight into their operation from someone outside, each and every week.

Thank you, and Loonbeam and ArthurUSCG for once again providing a wealth of really interesting information!

The biggest surprise is actually that 100% is the norm. My original thought was that USCG would have reports similar to USPH, where 100% is enough reason for a press release. A report like this https://wwwn.cdc.gov/inspectionquerytool/InspectionDetailReport.aspx?ColI=MTg3ODAyOTI%3d-b%2fF3Oz04CQI%3d shows problems like "A pan of ground beef patties was stored above a pan beef kabobs in the upright reach-in refrigerator. This was corrected immediately.". I understand how that's not 100% perfect, but I felt perfectly safe embarking on that ship a few months later, fully aware that it could have similar hazards at the time.

So I was under the impression that USCG would also be finding IMHO small problems like that all the time, and now all of a sudden someone decided that one of those was enough reason to stop a ship from sailing.

I'm not a big fan of cosiness between oversight and corporations at all, as from personal experience I know that small companies would suffer from rules that bigger companies can cope with much more easily. Then again, by nature, the cruise industry has big players only. That's why I thought maybe a "horizontal" approach, where USCG would be looking over your shoulder almost all the time instead of having a big exam once in a while could prevent problems like lifevests putting a full stop to the operation of a ship. Apparently, all my premises were wrong. :D

100% means that all checked items were in compliance with standards (which may have some variations). It doesn't mean everything was perfect.

As an example (numbers made up), lets say a ship needs to have 3142 available life jackets. They normally stock 3400 but due to an issue they only have 3143 available. Definitely an issue in case of emergency (no margin for error) but they are still in compliance. Again, this is made up scenario for example purposes only.

Thank you, and Loonbeam and ArthurUSCG for once again providing a wealth of really interesting information!

 

The biggest surprise is actually that 100% is the norm. My original thought was that USCG would have reports similar to USPH, where 100% is enough reason for a press release. A report like this https://wwwn.cdc.gov/inspectionquerytool/InspectionDetailReport.aspx?ColI=MTg3ODAyOTI%3d-b%2fF3Oz04CQI%3d shows problems like "A pan of ground beef patties was stored above a pan beef kabobs in the upright reach-in refrigerator. This was corrected immediately.". I understand how that's not 100% perfect, but I felt perfectly safe embarking on that ship a few months later, fully aware that it could have similar hazards at the time.

 

So I was under the impression that USCG would also be finding IMHO small problems like that all the time, and now all of a sudden someone decided that one of those was enough reason to stop a ship from sailing.

 

I'm not a big fan of cosiness between oversight and corporations at all, as from personal experience I know that small companies would suffer from rules that bigger companies can cope with much more easily. Then again, by nature, the cruise industry has big players only. That's why I thought maybe a "horizontal" approach, where USCG would be looking over your shoulder almost all the time instead of having a big exam once in a while could prevent problems like lifevests putting a full stop to the operation of a ship. Apparently, all my premises were wrong. :D

Your link only goes to the query page, not the exact report you mention, but I've read enough VSP reports to know what you are getting at.

If you look, for instance, at the latest Majesty of the Seas report, dated June 2016, you will see two items for the "Galley Dishwash Area", items #28 and #37. They look very similar in the inspection report. Now, if you go to the ship's Corrective Action Report, you will see a column headed "points". These are the deduction points given to make the final inspection score. Item #37 has only one point assigned for this deficiency, while item #28 has two. This is because the USPH inspectors use a "weighting" system (severity, number of times noted) to assign 0-5 possible points for each deficiency. You will note that many deficiencies carry no points deducted. Some of these "zero point" items were because the deficiency was corrected as the inspector stood there, some were because it was an administrative problem (like signage) that posed no direct threat to health, or where there was a deficiency caused by equipment failure, but the crew was performing an adequate work-around to meet sanitation requirements. So, a USPH deficiency can have a range of results, from 0-5 points deducted. And the final score can have a range of required actions. Above 85, the ship must remedy all deficiencies, and notify USPH when done. Below 85, the ship must still remedy all deficiencies, but USPH will schedule a re-exam within 1-2 months. If a deficiency or deficiencies are serious enough to present a clear risk to public health, the ship can be detained (prevented from embarking passengers) until it is remedied.

USCG, inspecting for SOLAS compliance, has two results, serviceable (compliant) or non-serviceable (non-compliant). If 85% of lifejackets are compliant, that is not a "passing score" like USPH, that simply means that 15% of the lifejackets must be replaced. The inspector will actually look at each and every lifejacket and make a determination, yes or no, no weighting or graduations. The only gradations in a SOLAS inspection is in the corrective action. Some deficiencies may be given a time limit to remedy, typically administrative types (like incorrect crew emergency duty lists, changes to the ISM plan, or ISPS plan, etc) and the ship is free to sail. Others require immediate action, such as replacing defective lifejackets with spares carried onboard. Still more serious deficiencies result in a "detention", meaning the ship cannot continue with its normal business (load cargo or passengers) until corrected. This usually is reported as time detained within schedule (hours required to remedy before ship was scheduled to sail) and time detained in delay (hours the ship is delayed remedying the deficiency, not the delay in completing cargo/passenger services).

The inspector will actually look at each and every lifejacket and make a determination, yes or no, no weighting or graduations. The only gradations in a SOLAS inspection is in the corrective action.

Thank you again!

The CDC reports are quite interesting sometimes. From the same report (Celebrity Silhouette, 04/10/2016, score 100). "A pallet with several boxes of bottled sparkling wine was stored under a bulkhead-mounted insect light trap. This was corrected immediately." The reason: "Prevent dead insects and insect fragments from falling on exposed food.". Makes me wonder how wine, in a bottle, in a box, can possibly be called "exposed food"?

It seems a bit similar to my business, software for doctors, where it's a serious risk to show too many warnings so users click away all of them, overlooking the ones that are important. In this case I can imagine crew or officers starting to think more about passing the inspection than about safety itself. "You're saying the salmon has a weird smell? Well the label says it's OK, it was bought from a supplier with a diploma, it has the right temperature, it was stored according to the rules. Let's focus on important things. Who put the wine below an insect trap?"

Are SOLAS inspections online as well?

Thank you again!

 

The CDC reports are quite interesting sometimes. From the same report (Celebrity Silhouette, 04/10/2016, score 100). "A pallet with several boxes of bottled sparkling wine was stored under a bulkhead-mounted insect light trap. This was corrected immediately." The reason: "Prevent dead insects and insect fragments from falling on exposed food.". Makes me wonder how wine, in a bottle, in a box, can possibly be called "exposed food"?

 

It seems a bit similar to my business, software for doctors, where it's a serious risk to show too many warnings so users click away all of them, overlooking the ones that are important. In this case I can imagine crew or officers starting to think more about passing the inspection than about safety itself. "You're saying the salmon has a weird smell? Well the label says it's OK, it was bought from a supplier with a diploma, it has the right temperature, it was stored according to the rules. Let's focus on important things. Who put the wine below an insect trap?"

 

Are SOLAS inspections online as well?

Unfortunately, some ships and lines do tend to focus on the inspection score. At NCL, we tried to build a culture of following the guidelines each and every day, which is why we did full, in house, USPH inspections every week. The more times the staff get dinged for something, the more it becomes "muscle memory" and part of their daily work routine. USPH inspections will always require that a meal service be observed, so the inspectors can see if the staff follow the guidelines while under the stress of meal service, or whether it is only window dressing for the inspection.

No, SOLAS inspections are not online. USCG does have a list of vessels detained for PSC problems, here:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjnr7a49aDSAhXNzCYKHXP-AXgQFggaMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uscg.mil%2Fhq%2Fcgcvc%2Fcvc2%2Fpsc%2Fsafety%2Fdetentions.asp&usg=AFQjCNEy7QOV1kSwA_4vjKi5ViU6RgySCA

But it does not show length of detention, or much regarding the resolution. Other nations' PSC agencies will have other reporting formats, but I don't know if they are online. Australia's AMSA does list detentions as well, and their reports of detentions are here:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjqx-6v-KDSAhVE2SYKHTefDeMQFggaMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amsa.gov.au%2Fvessels%2Fship-safety%2Fport-state-control%2Fship-detention%2F&usg=AFQjCNGBFFEjomOmKaeTB2aUnbz7dYhGuA&bvm=bv.147448319,d.eWE

The participants in the Paris MOU on PSC (most of Europe and Canada) have a list of detentions here:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjPgJeA96DSAhUBdSYKHZ_GD6IQFggaMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.parismou.org%2F&usg=AFQjCNHdwXzaZc7k_9aKKK1z-U4fvPN7SA

But these would be the equivalent of a list of failing scores on USPH inspections.

Unfortunately, some ships and lines do tend to focus on the inspection score. At NCL, we tried to build a culture of following the guidelines each and every day, which is why we did full, in house, USPH inspections every week.

I'm glad I made I my first ever right guess at how it works behind the scenes :)

I hope you implicitly agreed with me that the exposed wine situation is a bit over the top. B.t.w. "This was corrected immediately" could also mean that the insect trap was removed.

Doing full inspections is impressive, but wouldn't that make crew focus on scores as well instead of thinking about food safety?

For instance, let's say there's a rule about cutting boards for chicken that shouldn't be used for vegetables afterwards (I know this is not how it works on ships). Everytime you fail you get 5 points, just like the 5 points you get for breaking a plate, and 50 in a week would be enough to be disembarked. So you'll learn soon enough.

Then again, after learning about salmonella myself I can almost see the bacteria jumping from the chicken to the knife to the vegetables. Spending a lot of time to train crew to understand why there's a special rule for chicken meat seems much stronger than giving points for disobeying 4.12.3.IV Cutlery used for processing poultry cannot be used for any other product before having been cleaned according to methods as described in 3.11.17.XII.

At least, that's the training I got, and that's how my guests survived my cooking till now.

The more times the staff get dinged for something, the more it becomes "muscle memory" and part of their daily work routine. USPH inspections will always require that a meal service be observed, so the inspectors can see if the staff follow the guidelines while under the stress of meal service, or whether it is only window dressing for the inspection.

My muscle memory kicks in when I see a police car, then I reach for the seat belt even if I'm already wearing it. I'm not completely convinced the stress caused by meal service is enough to see what happens when the inspector is not looking.

No, SOLAS inspections are not online. USCG does have a list of vessels detained for PSC problems, here:.

Thanks for the links. Australia calls them "Ships of Shame", I like that :)

I'm glad I made I my first ever right guess at how it works behind the scenes :)

 

I hope you implicitly agreed with me that the exposed wine situation is a bit over the top. B.t.w. "This was corrected immediately" could also mean that the insect trap was removed. Actually, I don't. This is just like any other food storage issue, where the dead insects could fall on the wine bottles, and then when the wine is poured, the wine could contact the contamination.

 

Doing full inspections is impressive, but wouldn't that make crew focus on scores as well instead of thinking about food safety? No, we don't give scores for the inhouse inspections, we just bring up the items that need attention, and scores depend on food safety.

 

For instance, let's say there's a rule about cutting boards for chicken that shouldn't be used for vegetables afterwards (I know this is not how it works on ships). Everytime you fail you get 5 points, just like the 5 points you get for breaking a plate, and 50 in a week would be enough to be disembarked. So you'll learn soon enough. Actually, there are color coded cutting boards so that there is no cross-contamination. And the major benefit of the weekly inspections is to get the supervisors to understand what areas need improvement, and which employees need closer supervision, rather than punishment for poor performance.

 

Then again, after learning about salmonella myself I can almost see the bacteria jumping from the chicken to the knife to the vegetables. Spending a lot of time to train crew to understand why there's a special rule for chicken meat seems much stronger than giving points for disobeying 4.12.3.IV Cutlery used for processing poultry cannot be used for any other product before having been cleaned according to methods as described in 3.11.17.XII.The crew are trained in the why of each regulation, as well as the how to accomplish it. The rules are so strict that storage in the walk-in refrigerators are regulated, and is a violation to place chicken above beef or pork, since any possible dripping cross-contamination from beef is cooked to a higher heat (chicken), rather than chicken contamination being cooked to a lower heat.

 

At least, that's the training I got, and that's how my guests survived my cooking till now.

 

 

 

My muscle memory kicks in when I see a police car, then I reach for the seat belt even if I'm already wearing it. I'm not completely convinced the stress caused by meal service is enough to see what happens when the inspector is not looking. You haven't served 3000 meals. And the inspectors are very, very observant.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the links. Australia calls them "Ships of Shame", I like that :)

That's a bit over the top, as many detentions are for minor deficiencies.

Actually, I don't. This is just like any other food storage issue, where the dead insects could fall on the wine bottles, and then when the wine is poured, the wine could contact the contamination..

Yes, the insects can die in an insect trap, then fall, on a box, but happen to find the gap, after which they could stick to the bottle. After that, someone removes the metal shield that covers sparkling wine, but there's always a chance a sudden burst of wind could push the insect to the top of the bottle so it can actually touch the wine.

Just recently I happened to be in a wine cellar where bottles were literally covered by spider webs.

Yes, the insects can die in an insect trap, then fall, on a box, but happen to find the gap, after which they could stick to the bottle. After that, someone removes the metal shield that covers sparkling wine, but there's always a chance a sudden burst of wind could push the insect to the top of the bottle so it can actually touch the wine.

 

Just recently I happened to be in a wine cellar where bottles were literally covered by spider webs.

I wasn't thinking of cases of wine. In most cases, cardboard boxes are not allowed in food service areas, except the main provisions area, as corrugated cardboard is a known source of insects. If it was in cardboard boxes, then it fall under the general guideline that everything is "easily cleanable", and there is no way to clean a cardboard box, so the insect droppings could become a breeding source for further insect infestation. The general USPH rule is that nothing should be below an insect trap, nor should anything in a walk-in refrigerator be stored below the fan and cooling coil, as things can drop from these as well.