Shipboard Management Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Shipboard Management - Essay ExampleWhen the ship is tilted the life boats cannot be released, so the warning system must bouncing passengers before the tilt takes place. In this condition the passengers did not understand the advantage of taking life rafts and use the life vests on the ship. By the term they understood the situation is out of control. The life rafts were not easy to use and board. They over turned when used by the passengers. It is difficult to assemble them by the passel on board. This did not ensure any protection to passengers at the time of accident The supervision regarding the safety measures was not up to mark as some rafts were checked repeatedly and some were left without checking. This caused the destroying the roofs of the rafts for identification by the rescue helicopters. As there are many people to be rescued the number of helicopters did not comply with the need. They were over crowded. The number of rescue crew that came with the helicopters was n ot enough when compared to the number of people to be rescued.The investigating through the video tapes revealed the bow door failure. The failure was due to separation of it from the ferry. The ramp and screen of the bow were damaged and there is no supervision regarding it. This queasy normal safety measures implementation. The video observe that should be done was limited to some part of the vessel only and the bow door and the adjacent move were not monitored by it. The monitoring of the video was up to that extent only that it is useful aft(prenominal) the accident to estimate that up to how much extent and in how much time the water entered the vessel. 1The crew in operation also did not know about these lapses. Had they know it, they might have converse the ship which could have avoided the accident by sinking in deep water. This reveals the communication gap between the administration of the ship and crew in operation. after(prenominal) this a joint agreement between di fferent states took place to influence and amend the administrative issues regarding the prohibition of inspection. Not only did the probes about the sinking of the vessel, the investigation set a stage for enacting further safety measures on board of every vessel. The commissioner for wrecks, Mr Justice Sheen declared that it was the duty f the officer laden the main vehicle deck to see that the bow doors were safe and secure before leaving the harbour. Not only in this fountain the commissioner found after this investigation that this safety instruction was regularly violated by number of managements of the ship and other officers who monitor the loading of vehicle deck. In this particular case it was found that the officer left the responsibility of closing the bow doors to his assistant. This comes under the violation of standing instructions. The commissioner criticized the ship management company regarding the violation of safety measures and stated the need of considering the strict compliance to the safety measures. When the above statement of commissioner was considered the main responsibility of the disaster lies with the chief officer, his assistant and senior master who was responsible for the monitoring of implementation of the safety measur