View non-flash version
had crashed and was ashore being repaired. Then, the ABS surveyor asked to see the passage plans for the last voyage and the record of chart corrections. But these were on the broken laptop as well. Needless to say, the ABS was not impressed and the laptop constituted a single point failure. As more and more vessels go to electronic records, these records must still be maintained and accessible, and backed-up somewhere on the vessel. Sometimes I see inspection records all kept electronically. While I understand the need for less paper, at some point someone needs a list to go around and check off everything they are inspecting. In the case of chart corrections, someone must keep track of the corrections that were completed and the ones left to be done. So, if a piece of paper is used, it must then be scanned, adding another step. Worse, if the paper copy gets transcribed into a computer system (even more time consuming) there is the added bonus of transcription errors. Increasingly, companies want everything entered into a database viewable from the ofÞ ce. And, if this adds value to the operation, then so much the better. However, I have a hard time understanding why so many deck safety inspections should be transcribed into these databases. I suspect that simply entering the date of the inspection on a monthly spreadsheet attached to the maintenance program would ensure these items were being completed in a timely manner. Let the vessel keep records of the inspection results and deÞ ciencies rectiÞ ed on board. Single Point Failures: donÕt let these problems, ultimately be yours. The audit is coming. A good lawyer never asks a question that he/she does not already know the answer to. Anticipate the questions, eliminate the single point failures and yours swill be a more compliant and ultimately a safer vessel. www.marinelink.com MN 23MN Jan2013 Layout 18-31.indd 23MN Jan2013 Layout 18-31.indd 231/2/2013 2:24:34 PM1/2/2013 2:24:34 PM
