【案例研讨】亚太地区经典PSC案例五

某杂货船，建于2006年，因以下可滞留缺陷被滞留:05108——无线电设备性能标准:用直流和交流电进行的MF...



某杂货船，建于2006年，因以下可滞留缺陷被滞留:

05108——无线电设备性能标准:用直流和交流电进行的MF/HF无线电设备DSC测试失败;

07106——火灾探测和报警系统:不受固定探火和火警报警系统保护。

A general cargo vessel built in 2006 was detained due to the following detainable deficiencies:

05108 Performance standards for radio equipment: MF/HF RADIO DSC FAILURE TEST BY DC AND AC;

07106 Fire detection and alarm system: FIRE DETECTION SYSTEM NOT PROTECTED BY FIXE FIRE DETECTION AND FIRE ALARM SYSTEM.

争议 DISPUTE RO不同意港口国当局的滞留，并表达了如下意见:

1. MF/HF无线电测试失败，可能是因为有一些障碍物阻挡了无线电波，如强电流或岸上设施的噪声干扰，而不是设备本身的问题。因为在第二天开展的临时检验中，仅仅对该船的位置做了稍稍调整而没有对设备做任何的维修和保养，说明了该设备处于良好状态;并且

2.至于"消防控制站不受固定探火和火警报警系统保护"的缺陷，根据SOLAS公约采取的保护方法，该处所是不需要安装火警探测报警系统的。

基于上述情况，RO认为滞留并不合理。

The RO did not agree with the detention by the port State Authority and expressed views that:

1.  The MF/HF radio test failure was assumed because there were some obstructions against the radio wave, such as strong electric current or noise of Shore Facilities rather than equipment problem as it was confirmed during the occasional survey next day that MF/HF Radio Communication was in proper condition after slight shifting of ship’s position without any repair/ maintenance; and

2. Regarding “Fire control station not protected by fixed fire detection & fire alarm system”, the space/room in question is not required to install fire detection alarm system based on the protection method adopted in accordance with the SOLAS regulation.

Based on the above, the RO is of the opinion that the detention was not justified.

港口国当局认为:

1. MF/HF无线电DSC测试失败;即从低频到高频测试呼叫邻近的海岸电台没有得到任何回复;

2.根据SOLAS公约第IV章/第4条和A.1052(27)决议附录2，"用于遇险和安全通信的无线电设备不能正常工作"被认为是一个可滞留缺陷;

3.根据SOLAS公约第II-2章第7条，控制站应当安装固定式火警探测报警系统;

4.RO关于固定火灾探测报警系统的解释是基于船级社的规范，这些规定是非强制的，因此不能被接受。

因此滞留是公正合理的。

The port State Authority is of the opinion that:

1. The MF/HF radio DSC test was failed; i.e. the test call from low frequency to high frequency to a neighbouring coastal station was with no reply;

2. In accordance with Regulation IV/4 of SOLAS and Appendix 2 to Resolution

A.1052(27), “failure of the proper operation of the radio equipment for distress and safety communication” is considered a detainable deficiency;

3. Fixed fire detection and alarm system should be provided for the control station in accordance with SOLAS Ch.II-2 Regulation 7;

4.  Explanations by the RO regarding the fixed fire detection and alarm system were based on class rules which were considered not compulsory therefore could not be accepted.

Therefore the detention was justified.

问题 QUESTION你认为滞留是否合理?

Do you think this detention justified?

总结 SUMMARY 基于以下通常的理由，滞留被认为是不恰当的:

1.在不知道测试失败原因的情况下，MF/HF无线电设备DSC测试失败本身不应当作为滞留的直接依据;港口国监督检查官应进一步检查无线电台日志，并询问设备主管人员以确认维修保养和操作方面的问题;使用的缺陷行动代码17将更为适合;

2.消防控制站不受固定探火和火警报警系统保护的缺陷并不清晰，因为未提到控制站的位置;虽然SOLAS公约第II-2章第7.5.5条的一般规定是指控制站，但控制站不需要通过固定火警探测报警系统进行保护，因为在SOLAS公约第II-2章7.5.5.1-3*下所描述的三种方法都没有提及控制站。港口国监督检查官在滞留该船之前应咨询船旗国主管机关或RO，以就消防安全布置上达成共识，这将是最为合适和最值得推荐的。

The detention is considered inappropriate generally for the following reasons:

1.  Without knowing the cause of the failure, MF/HF radio DSC test failure itself should not immediate ground for detention; the PSC officer should further check the radio log and interview the deck officer in charge to confirm the maintenance and operational aspects; it would be appropriate to use action code 17;

2.  The deficiency of fire control station not protected by fixed fire detect and alarm system was not clear because the location of the control station was not mentioned; although the general provision under SOLAS Ch.II-2 Reg.7.5.5 refers to control stations, control stations need not to be protected by fixed fire detection and alarm system as there is no mention of control station in the three methods described under SOLAS Ch.II-2 Reg.7.5.5.1-.3 * ; it would be most appropriate and recommendable that PSC officer should consult with the flag State/RO on deficiency regarding fire safety arrangement for common understanding before detaining the ship.

滞留复审小组的意见

1.港口国监督检查官应该明白，因为障碍物或者地形的原因，船舶在港内不能进行MF/HF DSC测试的演示是十分普遍和常见的;

2.当港口国监督检查官发现MF/HF设备的DSC测试一个站台失败，他应要求责任船员测试可用的替代站台，同时检查无线电台日志和测试记录;

3.因为港口国监督检查官在检查过程中确定设备是否出现故障十分困难，所以使用缺陷行动代码17一离港前纠正，而不是使用代码30滞留，将会更加合理;

4.如果港口国监督检查官对控制站的固定火警探测报警系统存在疑问，他应该在采取任何行动之前咨询船旗国主管机关或RO并进行确认;并且(*这项认识是基于海上安全委员会第92次会议批准的MSC 92 MSC. 1/Circ. 1456通函中的统一解释)

5.因为审批消防安全系统或布置是船旗国主管机关或RO的责任，在没有询问或咨询船旗国主管机关或RO的情况下，将此类问题作为缺陷或者直接滞留是不合适的。

该审查组成员一致认为该滞留不合理。因此，印度尼西亚国家港口管理局将被要求重新考虑滞留的决定。

Opinions of the Detention Review Panel

1. The PSC officer should understand that it is entirely feasible and not uncommon for ships not to be able to demonstrate the operation of the MF/HF DSC test in port due to obstructions or topography;

2. When the PSC officer found the MF/HF DSC test failed for one station, he should have asked the crew in charge to test alternative stations available and also examine the radio log and records of test;

3. Since it would be difficult for the PSC officer to decide whether the equipment was malfunction or not during the inspection, it would be more reasonable to use action code 17-rectify deficiency before departure instead of code 30-detention;

4. Should the PSC officer have question regarding provision of fixed fire detection and alarm system in control station, he should consult and confirm with the flag State or the RO before taking any action; and

5. Since it is the responsibility of the flag State or RO to examine and approve fire safety system/arrangements, it would not be appropriate to put the issue of this kind as deficiency or for detention straightaway without consultation with the flag State or RO.

The panel members are of the unanimous opinion that the decision of detention was not justified.

Therefore, the port State Authority of Indonesia would be requested to re-consider the decision of the detention.

    关注 中海集运安全监管部