Consultancy offer and pressure to omit a fire main deficiency
You are a surveyor with a recognized organization that also audits the owner's ISM and ISPS systems. You are assigned the annual survey of the 2015-built chemical tanker Solvent Dawn. Before boarding, the owner's fleet manager, with whom you worked at sea, asks you to 'keep it light' because the ship is fixed on a tight charter. He also offers you a paid consultancy role on a newbuilding project, starting next month, 'subject to a satisfactory report'. During the survey, you find the fire main section isolation valve seized in the closed position, so the aft hydrant is isolated, and the emergency fire pump cannot deliver the required pressure at the furthest hydrant. The chief engineer says the previous surveyor accepted a condition of class and the ship sailed. The manager asks you not to record the fire pump deficiency because it is 'only a performance issue' and the charter penalty is USD 40,000 per day.
1. How do you deal with the consultancy offer?
Read the worked answer
The consultancy offer, coming before my report and expressly 'subject to a satisfactory report', is an inducement, not a normal job offer. Even without that wording, accepting paid work from an owner whose ship I survey, while my organization also audits its ISM and ISPS systems, creates a conflict of interest. The RO Code and the inspection body's independence requirements expect the surveyor to be free of commercial pressure.
I would decline, tell the manager that I cannot discuss it during the survey, and report the approach to my line manager or compliance function in writing. I would not let the offer affect any finding, and I would record that the offer was made.
2. Is the fire pump deficiency a condition of class or a statutory deficiency, and can the ship sail?
Read the worked answer
The fire main isolation valve seized closed means the aft section of the fire main is isolated, and the emergency fire pump cannot deliver the required pressure at the furthest hydrant. For a cargo ship of this size, SOLAS II-2/10 requires two independently driven fire pumps and a fire main capable of the required pressure and flow; with one pump ineffective and a section isolated, the ship does not have the required firefighting capability.
This is a statutory deficiency, not merely a performance issue, and it is potentially detainable. A condition of class may be used for a class item with a due date, but it cannot convert a statutory non-compliance into a valid certificate. I would require repair and a pressure test at the furthest hydrant before departure, and if that cannot be done I would withhold the endorsement and notify the flag administration or recognized organization.
3. What do you do when the manager asks you to omit the deficiency?
Read the worked answer
I would refuse to omit the deficiency and would record it, together with the manager's request, in the survey report and my file. The previous surveyor's acceptance is not a precedent; each survey stands on its own evidence, and 'the ship sailed last time' does not make the fire main compliant.
I would make clear that the charter penalty is not a technical consideration for me, and I would escalate the pressure to my manager and, if necessary, the flag administration. If the ship is allowed to sail by someone else, my record should show what I found, what I required and when. That protects the crew, the port and my own integrity.