Global Superyacht Forum - Some Thoughts About Regulations In this Economy: It Should Be About Quality Crew and Training.

Last month I was on the following panel at the Global Superyacht Forum in Amsterdam:

This extended debating session following on from GSF 2007, will allow delegates to discuss and debate the various ways in which interpretations and consistency of rules would help improve the process of building and designing large yachts. In addition the session will highlight some of the key changes and developments amongst the Flag states and Class societies.


Peter Southgate - Cayman Islands Shipping Registry
David Ralph – Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Eric Goldring – Goldring & Goldring
Robert Curry - American Bureau of Shipping - Europe
Paolo Moretti - RINA
Engel de Boer - Lloyd's Register

The discussion started out with ABS (a Classification society - which is charged with "classing" or determining and assuring the structural/mechanical/operational quality of the yacht) discussing some new regulations regarding windows, port lights and some other items, followed by MCA discussing the need to regulate further and then a discussion about actual work toward some consistency between the government regulators (MCA), the shipping registries (the governmental agencies involved with "home ports" such as you see noted on the stern of ships) and the classification societies.
 
Discussion then led to a comment that many of the "theories" used in creating these regulations do not work in practice; that walking on a Superyacht during construction is worthwhile, but seeing how the regulations actually work in practice...when the Superyacht is in operation...is quite another thing.  And, to be sure, that is not regularly done or those experiences regularly considered with the new regulations.
 
I then raised the subject of why "Cost Benefit Analysis" is not being done in relation to the ever increasingly stringent regulations on design and equipment, noting that the Superyacht industry has not had a fatality or life-threatening injury due to a yacht's failure in well over a year (possibly over 2 years or more); evidencing the industry is one of the safest in the world.  I further stated that while I am sure there will, unfortunately, be a catastrophic accident in the future there most probably will invariably be a significant human element in that loss.  (No one disagreed with my premise.)
 
With that preface I asked why the regulators, registries and classification societies do not run the cost benefit analysis that are run in literally every other business whether it be automotive, aviation or even the space shuttle; noting that in the present economy the concept of there is plenty of money so spending it on supposed increased safety doesn't work...if it ultimately causes yards to fail and yachts not to be built or purchased.
 
After not really hearing much of a substantive response, another reprsentative from the MCA noted from the audience that they had an "ethical responsibility" to generate the ever more stringent regulations.  My response was "Don't get me started with the problems of regulating ethics.  I could give an entire seminar on the topic." 
 
To me that "canned" response was, as it has been in the past, shameful.  Regulations are to be based upon "engineering"; not "ethics".  The MCA's demand that "saving human lives!!!!!" is what is all about and anyone that doesn't prescribe to that philosophy is unethical is, frankly, horrific.  To me it is a smoke screen for politicians trying to justify their existence.  How can I so boldly state this?  It is easy.
 
In an industry where there is a history of years of no catastrophic losses due to items which are the subject of these regulations we are, fortunately, already at the supposed "Theoretical Zero."  You cannot improve on that kind of consistent history simply by throwing regulations and creating higher standards in the hope that it "may" at some point cause one or two theoretically possible losses from happening at some unknown point in the future.
 
What you can do is use the, now more than ever, finite amount of available dollars available for designing safety on what is the weakest link in the Superyacht...and cruise...industry:  Crew. 
 
Imagine how much safety could actually be improved with the millions of dollars expended on crew recruitment, education, training and safety?  Dollar for dollar, euro for euro and pound for pound I do not believe there is a single soul in the Superyacht or cruise industry that could...or frankly, would...argue that my position is incorrect.
 
The MCA will argue that it has training requirements.  The fact is that within the Superyacht industry captains, crew and managers are screaming that taking MCA required tests do not make good captains:  years of actual experience (and not just sea time) does.  A head in a book versus a head in an engine room, a seat in a classroom or at the helm, where do you think the knowledge actually is obtained?
 
When you walk on a superyacht or a cruise ship even the most novice of passengers (forget the professionals) can instantly identify the crew members that "get it", that having the training and who exude the confidence and knowledge that puts every one of us at ease. 
 
In an emergency, do you want:
 
     1.  A supposedly "idiot-proof" designed piece of equipment with an idiot standing by the ready to use it;  or,
 
     2.  A still well designed piece of equipment with a well-trained and knowledgeable crew member able to operate the equipment, even if it doesn't work perfectly, to its optimum level?
 
Personally, I would guess that 100% would vote for keeping the word "idiot" out of the equation!
 
So my question is simple:  Why to the regulators like MCA insist on more regulations on equipment with a history of excellent safety, drawing millions in funds away from actual crew recruitment and improvement, when the real improvements in avoiding accidents lies with crew?
 
I have no answers.  Do you?

Banks Mansion Hotel Amsterdam - A Great Place to Stay

I arrived in Amsterdam at 5:15 am this morning in advance of the Global Superyachts Forum, dreading having to wait for anything to open.  I was certain that I would not be able to check-in to my hotel, nothing would be open, and I would be miserable.  Boy was I wrong!

Upon arriving at the Banks Mansion (in a great location only two blocks from Rembrantplein) I was greated with a smile, with a complimentary minibar, free wifi, very nice (if smaller ) room with a view of the canal!  It was still dark, so a little bit of CNN and a drink and I was asleep.  (BTW, there are lots of other little touches, like a nighlight on the bathroom floor and a tv speaker there too, a bowl of apples in your room to snack on, free movies, Frank Lloyd Wright inspired furniture, plenty of task lighting and free DVDs among others.)

A few hours later I was awoken by a racket outside.  I opened my curtains and it was a parade; a parade for Sinter Klaus...the "real" Santa Claus!  Children were lining the street, beautiful horsedrawn carrages and floats were slowing going by with jugglers and elf-like assistance giving candy and treats to the children.  What a great way to be woken up!

A bit of complimentary cooked breakfast and it was time to walk around a bit; seeing the familiar and discovering some new things.  What I like about this hotel, among other things, is that its location is fantastic for shopping, dining and people watching...with the museums also being within walking distance...and I can hop on the No. 4 tram right to the RAI Center for the GSF and METS marine industry show.

I try to do one "tourist" thing everywhere I go.  Today was the Heineken Brewery Tour.  The tour has been closed for about a year, so it was brand new.  They did a great job with the renovations.  You would not recognize the place...and most all for the better.  While for an older person it was OK, there is a lot of fun stuff for the younger tourist.  So, age dependent, I would put it on the "Must Due" or "Give it a miss" list.

Another bit of a walk and then back to the Banks Mansion for complimentary cocktails and snacks in a small, but very attractive, lobby...and writing this post. I really like this place.  (And Amsterdam ain't so bad either!)

2008 Global Superyacht Forum (Amsterdam)

Every year there is the preeminent gathering of the superyacht industry in Amsterdam:  The Global Superyacht Forum.  (http://www.superyachtevents.com/gsf )This event, with over 650 of the top members of the industry, is held in conjunction with METS, the world's largest exhibition of equipment, materials and systems for the international marine leisure industry. (http://www.metstrade.com/home.asp).

I have the honor of just being confirmed as the legal expert on a panel discussing and debating the various ways in which interpretations and consistency of the rules for constructing superyachts would help improve the process of building and designing of these floating palaces. 

For those with an interest in the highly technical world of superyacht construction (it isn't about the glamour you read about!), this is a rather hot topic, as this has been a very confused area of the industry.  There has been great inconsistency between the various classification societies (such as Lloyd's, RINA and American Bureau of Shipping) and the ship's registries (the entities where you document/register your yacht), the governmental interests (such as MCA and the U.S. Coast Guard) and those who are trying to get the yachts built according to the ever evolving specification and regulatory schemes...and on time and on budget (the shipyards and owners).

With the drastic change in the economy I think this will be an extraordinary session as what, at least to me, has been a "who cares what it costs, they all have money" will necessarily have to take into account both the concept of economic costs for the regulations and the "not killing the goose that laid the golden egg".

Joining me on the panel will be ship surveyors from Lloyd's Register of Shipping, RINA, The Cayman Island Shipping Register, the MCA (UK's Maritime and Coastguard Agency -the European regulatory gurus) and a shipyard.