Newest Developments in the MARINA Line of Thinking About Ferries

There were two notable developments in the MARINA line of thinking about ferries recently although it is still in draft form and probably it might still have to go through hearings and the opposition of shipping companies. One, it will insist that henceforth new-build local ferries and surplus imported ones will have to be stern-docking. It seems the ones currently sailing in the country will not really be banned after all or be forced to convert.

MARINA says that this is for safety in sailing. But I really cannot comprehend what ghosts or ghouls are they fearing. We never had a ferry that is bow-loading that was lost at sea through a ramp or bow failure nor have a ferry sink through a collision and the failure of the bow. For sure, the MARINA Administrator is thinking of the Estonia and Herald of Free Enterprise sinking in Europe when the two ferries sank because of some dumb failure to close the bow and the other the failure of the bow door of the ship itself.

Our ferries that are bow-loading are all small and their bow ramps are line of sight with the bridge and usually there are crews of the ships and of the trucks that are in the car deck. It is impossible to be missed that a ramp is not closed with all the possible people that can see it even in the night. It won’t just easily fall off while sailing because if there is a crack or worse the ramp would have already fallen in the loading process or else give a signal that it is giving way soon.

10638495985_9e8b9611b5_z

A small, bow-loading ferry which shows that the ramp is very visible from the bridge

Up until today there are so many bow-loading ferries in Japan, China, Korea, Europe that are still sailing. Those countries are more advanced that ours shipping-wise and in the design. Now, I don’t know why we should be more popish than the Pope. That is why I called the fears of Amaro as simply ghosts. Does he want to claim in the world that we were the first to ban bow-loading ferries? That is simply laughable and other countries will just snicker at us.

One effect though if this MARINA rule pushes through is we can’t import basic, short-distance ferries anymore as all of these are bow-loading. This type has been questioned for its safety before as these were classed in Japan for just inland sea and bay operations only. Now, I don’t know if the real motive of Amaro is to do away with this type.

Anent this, existing bow-loading ferries henceforth are banned from using their bow ramps to stop the ship. This is what is done by the small ferries and the LCTs which are loath in using bollards and their anchors and its resultant longer docking maneuver time. Aside from the possible wharf damage, MARINA is fearful of the damage it can cause the ramps of the ships.

16232543278_1a05f7ca0c_z

Mae Wess ferries just use the ramp to hold the ship in place

But I wonder if MARINA ever did any serious study on this. The best example they can study are the ferries of Mae Wess of Davao which is also known as CW Cole which are Davao-Samal short-distance ferries of LCT and double-ended ferry designs. These don’t use their bollards and anchors and instead use reversing of screws and the lowering of the ramps in the causeway-type wharf to stop the ship. If there is no swell that ramp laid atop the wharf keeps the ferry in its place even though the ropes of the ship are not deployed. If there is a swell then the helmsman uses the screws to push the ferry to the causeway-type wharf thereby keeping it immobile.

The Mae Wess/CW Cole ferries depart twice in an hour for up to 16 hours in a day and so they normally would have 25 or so dockings in a day. I have yet to hear a ramp of theirs fall off because of using the ramp to stop the ship. As for the wharves they own it so MARINA and the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) cannot really complain. PPA is really the entity in charge of government-owned ports and I am just wondering how come MARINA is the one complaining first about wharf damage when that thing is withing the purview of the PPA.

38197233804_1be13b4ff8_z

Scouring of the wharf of the private BALWHARTECO Port is visible but a scoured wharf is very good in stopping the ship. The damage can easily be repaired and BALWHARTECO takes that as normal wear and tear in the course of business.

In the Bicol ferries I have heard of ramp damage in their bow-loading ferries but that was not because of using the ramp to stop the ship but because of the overweight loads that bends the ramps and there are cases of ramp fracture because of this. That is why sometimes very heavy loads like carriers of really heavy equipment have a hard time securing a ride because the ferries avoid them due to possible ramp damage. I know of a case once in Matnog that the deal was a Grand Star RORO ferry would take in just that single load solo and the vehicle would have to pay for nearly the full load of the ship (now this kind of load is not taken by the newly-fielded Cargo RORO LCTs).

I don’t know. It has long been my observation that our government simply issues orders without concrete studies. And I have also observed that true experts does not matter in our government. That is because government functionaries think that they are the “experts” when at times they know next to nothing especially if they are just political appointees or entered government service by having an MBA (“Me Backer Ako”). Worse, armchair scholars who do not really ride ships also pretend that they are “shipping experts” when in actuality they are not.

Another development which is a welcome one because of opposition is there would no longer be retirement of ships arbitrarily based on age and instead it will be based on inspections which should be the case anyway. In other countries where shipping is more advanced than ours there is no such thing as forced retirement because of age. There, Port State Control (PSC) inspections are the means. If a ship cannot pass the surprise PSC inspections it gets detained and won’t be able to sail until the serious deficiencies are corrected. Sometimes it gets to a point that remedying the deficiencies will already cost a lot of money and so the ships are simply sold to the breakers. Or sent to some Third World country like the Philippines where there are no strict standards and inspections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_State_Control

Port State Control is not being used in the Philippines because ship owners oppose it. It has been said that if PSC is implemented here then only a few of our ships will pass that and the moving of goods will then be hampered.

What we do instead is we let a slew of local inspection and certification societies qualify our ships. That became the system because our maritime regulatory agency MARINA does not have enough skills and people to inspect our ships since the agency is not composed of maritime professionals. For ship inspections before departure that function has been devolved by MARINA to the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) since the agency don’t have offices in all our ports. But then the PCG is also not composed of maritime professionals too and so most times their primary role just sinks to the level of counting the passengers to check if the ship is not overloaded.

6987731223_f0449ffcec_z

Coast Guard people doing pre-departure inspection work

Linearly, older ships might really be less safe as aging might mean more things can go wrong at the level of the equipment of the ship. But I am not implying here that they are not safe as safety is a very relative term. In the recent years, actually our ship losses went down and I think the most proximate reason for this is when the wind blows a little or if the swell reaches a foot high then voyages of our ships even the big ones are then suspended. In a clear sea the chance of a ship sinking even if it loses propulsion is very low.

The government too does not want to take chances when the weather becomes a little inclement. The main reason is there are not enough search and rescue assets around and if there are those are not found in the busy sea lanes but in the big cities where there is more “civilization”. Like PCG ships would rather be in Cebu port rather in the Camotes islands. In Surigao Strait when a ship is in distress sometimes the Coast Guard have to borrow some ferry or tug. Or not send out a ship at all like in the Maharlika Dos incident.

14894544166_ab78fce089_k

The Philippine Coast Guard in Cebu

What remains to be seen now is what standard will MARINA use in the inspections to certify our ships. That could be the bloody part in the push and pull of MARINA and the ship owners. But at least that might be better than what happened in our bus industry. JICA, the Japan International Cooperation Agency recommended the technical inspection of our buses but the bus owners balked at the Japan standard. Next, JICA suggested using the Singapore technical standard and the bus owners balked again. And so the LTFRB, the regulatory agency that has buses within its power then set an arbitrary 15 year-old automatic retirement scheme for buses. The engine running hours or wear and the kind of maintenance no longer mattered. I don’t know if I will cry when I heard buses still capable of 120kph being retired forcibly. At least it will be good if that thing will not happen to our ships especially the ones being maintained well.

I will be attuned for what will be the final version that will come out of MARINA. I just hope the final result will be fair to all concerned including the riding public.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s