MARINE ACCIDENT INVESTIGATORS INTERNATIONAL FORUM
By K.M. Varghese, Chairman MAIIF

Gentlemen,

It is a privilege to address this august body of Experts Group on Maritime Safety and share with you some information on the activities of the Marine Accident Investigators International Forum. Most of what I am about to say may not be new to you. I will therefore request your indulgence for few minutes.

First, a little history

Mankind has engaged in sea transport from time immemorial. The risks were well recognized and only the brave ventured out to sea. As late as the 16^th century, only 50 % ships ever returned home after long voyages. This was acceptable to the society at that time, though not to the families of the seafarers who perished. But they had no choice. Had they not gone out to sea they would have surely perished of starvation. As far as is known there were no systematic investigations into the causes of loss of ships or lives at that time. They were accepted as hazards of the trade and profession.

Laws on shipping existed even in Phoenician days. Then came the Roman Laws. In England, laws codified on the Isle of Oleron in 1152AD, and adapted by Eleanor of Acquintine, became its maritime law in 1190. But these were not laws to ensure safety of ships. As the ruling classes were also the ship owning classes, the earlier laws were developed to protect trade and the ship owner, i.e. for commercial security not for safety.

According to the English newspaper, The Courier of 5 May 1822, 2000 vessels and 20,000 men perished at sea in the European winter of 1821. Compare that with the less than 1000 lives lost at sea every year worldwide these days. In 1826, the House of Commons, responding to public concerns, appointed the first of three Select Committees that were to enquire into the cases of shipwrecks. The Select Committee found the most common causes of wrecks to be :-

1. Defective construction of ships
2. Inadequacy of Equipment
3. Imperfect state of repairs
4. Improper and excessive loading
5. Incompetence of masters and officers
6. Drunkenness
7. Operation of marine insurance
8. Imperfection of Charts
9. etc.

It is difficult to fault the Select Committee in their findings. We have the same problems today. In 1846, the British government passed an Act to regulate the construction of vessels. The Act required for the first time that serious accidents to, or loss of steam ships must be reported to the Board of Trade and this Act grave the Board of Trade powers to investigate such marine casualties. Here we have the beginnings of our modern casualty investigation regime.

In the next two decades the BOT carried out a number investigations into loss of ships. There was criticism about the investigations conducted by the BOT inspector as the BOT was alleged to be acting as "judge and jury". The Merchant Shipping Act of 1876 introduced a new, two tier system of inquiry. This included the preliminary inquiry by BOT followed by a formal investigation by a judge, advised by specialist assessors. This system endured until 1970s and became the common system in all British colonies. In the meantime other maritime nations also developed their own investigation systems. A common feature of all these systems were that the primary emphasis was on blame and punishment which fell mainly on the ship’s crew. It is only in the latter half of this century that the merits of independent safety investigations, apart from the blame and punishment culture, were recognised in certain countries. Countries such as USA, Canada, UK, Australia and Netherlands have now established organisations to investigate casualties, independent of regulatory authorities.

International Scene

The International Maritime Consultative Organization was established in March 1948. The first Safety of Life at Sea Convention was also adopted in 1948. Regulation 21 of the convention required that "Each Administration undertakes to conduct an investigation of any casualty occurring to any of its ships subject to the provisions of the present convention when it judges that such an investigation may assist in determining what changes in the present Regulations may be desirable" and to supply the Organization with pertinent information concerning the findings of such investigations. The same wording appears in later SOLAS conventions and the 1966 Loadline convention.

It is important to note that IMO only required investigations where changes to convention requirements were anticipated. These investigations were not for apportioning blame or instituting punishment. There was also no requirement to submit the investigation reports to IMO or to make the report available to the industry.

Shipping is very much an international business. Ships do meet with accidents in the territories of other countries. Nowadays a ship may be registered in country A with crew from countries B to D, take cargo from country E to country F etc. There are therefore many interested parties in the safe running of a ship. Accident investigations may therefore involve many administrations. To conduct an effective casualty investigation information will need to be collected from many sources. The need for international co-operation very evident.

The philosophy and thoroughness of investigation also matter. Legal systems, resources allocated to investigations, qualification and training of investigators etc. are factors which affect the outcome of any investigation. There is thus a need for a common approach to investigating and analyzing marine casualties.

The value of an investigation is also limited unless the reports an made public. Publication of reports have two major benefits. The first is that the industry can learn from the findings. The second, indirect benefit is that the public gets a chance to debate the thoroughness of the report and question it, if necessary, so that gradually a better investigation process will evolve.

IMO recognized that its member countries had substantial variations in their legal systems and investigation practices. It also recognised that international co-operation is essential where ships belonging to two or more flags are involved in an accident or where a ship meets with an accident in a foreign territory. IMO therefore adopted a number of Resolutions urging member states to co-operate in casualty investigations. However, these Resolutions couched in legal terms remained vague and lacked in details.

The situation in early 90s was thus. Only a few countries had well established systems for casualty investigations. Many incidents went unreported to IMO. Even the reports received by IMO were superficial and lacking in details. International co-operation, in spite of IMO Resolutions, remained patchy.

In the Aviation sector the situation was much better. Civil Aviation, being a new industry, was not burdened with the baggage of the past traditions and practices. Accidents to aircraft and its passengers receive worldwide attention. The toleration for errors in the sky are rather limited compared to ships at sea. Also, the systems for casualty investigations developed by countries leading in aviation industry were adopted by others. As a result, the International Civil Aviation Organization was able to develop and implement comprehensive systems and procedures for casualty investigations and international co-operation, with minimal resistance from member countries. In the maritime sector we were and still are burdened with differing traditions , practices and philosophies.

Formation of MAIIF

Canada in 1990 established the Transportation Safety Board responsible for investigating all accidents relating to the road, rail, air and marine transportation. The then Director of the marine division of TSB was queried by his aviation colleagues why the marine sector is in such a chaotic situation. He knew the reasons and also knew that it will be difficult change traditions spanning centuries.

He felt that he had to do something about it. In June 1992, Canada arranged a meeting of Marine Accident Investigators from all over the world to explore the possibility of establishing an organization modelled on the International Association of Aviation Safety Investigators. Representatives from 19 administrations attended the meeting. During three days of meeting the participants discussed their national investigation systems, their strengths and weaknesses and above all the problems encountered in obtaining international co-operation in casualty investigations. The need for an international forum to exchange views and ideas, to improve the quality of investigations and to aid international co-operation were readily agreed by the participants. The participants agreed to continue the dialogue through further meetings.

At meetings held in Cypress (1993) and Hong Kong (1994) the Objectives of the Forum and its Charter were finalized. The salient points of the Charter are :

- Membership is open to all Marine Accident Investigators employed or appointed by Administrations.

- There will be no fees for membership or any other charges to the Administrations.

- Attendance at the meetings is restricted to members and those observers approved by the Chairman.

- Members will attend the meetings at their own cost, generally funded by their Administration.

- The Chairman’s Administration will bear the cost of all correspondence.

- Member’s Administrations will host the meetings, which are to be held annually.

- Meetings will be rotated around the world to facilitate participation by Administrations in the region.

Formation of MAIIF filled a long felt need in the area of international co-operation in marine accident investigations. The Forum is still evolving. Over the past seven years the Forum has been successful in developing an informal and friendly working relationship among its members. One of the achievements of the Forum was the development of the Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents and getting it adopted as an IMO instrument. MAIIF meetings are held in a very informal atmosphere to promote frank and free exchange of views. The comradery built up among the participants has gone a long way in improving the co-operation among the Administrations in investigating casualties involving foreign ships.

What MAIIF is doing

The investigators from all over the world meet once a year. There are a number of distinct characteristics to the MAIIF.

1. MAIIF does not tell other organisations or authorities what to do. We tell ourselves what we must do. What are the best investigating procedures, how to train our investigators, how to cope with the shifting of focus to human elements influence and safety management systems and how best we can co-operate regardless of restriction imposed by the national legal system or procedures. In effect how can we do our jobs better.

2. At MAIIF we have members from the best investigating agencies in the word. Case studies are presented and discussed. We learn from each other. Those who need assistance and seek it are encouraged and rewarded.

3. The atmosphere in MAIIF is deliberately kept informal to encourage interaction. There are no national agendas or politics to vitiate our discussions.

4. It is entirety up to individual members to influence their administrations to adopt changes such as legal systems, procedures etc.

5. The Casualty Analysis Working Group of the IMO FSI Sub-committee is mostly populated by MAIIF members. It is a very close-knit group. Though MAIIF has not sought any formal presence in IMO, our members are able to influence the IMO deliberations on casualty investigation matters in a very effective manner. The passage of the Code through IMO in record time was an example.

What has MAIIF achieved

The first achievement is a marked improvement in international co-operation. Our members know each other, know each others systems and limitations. Telephones and faxes are answered promptly and positively. Where there are legal impediments in providing co-operation, we, if we can, find a way around the system. This is a far cry from the situation prevailing until the early 90s.

We have now got the Code, though it is not mandatory. We have developed a model course for training investigators. We are in the process of finalizing an investigator’s manual on how to do investigations. The indirect aim is the harmonization of investigation procedures and to enhance professional satisfaction. Our members attending the FSI Sub-committee have helped the development of better casualty reporting formats. There is now a group of specialists analysing the investigation reports submitted to IMO. The networking in MAIIF has greatly aided the process in IMO.

What Needs to be done

The present Code is not mandatory. We would like to see it becoming mandatory in future. We know there will be resistance. MAIIF will continue to influence the change in philosophy of maritime administrations to achieve this objective. It has recently been reported that the European Union has issued a decree requiring all its members to amend their legislation to give effect to the Code. Progress in the adoption of the code being made, faster than expected.

We need to have better trained investigators. Training is a serious problem as the numbers to be trained in each country is limited. National administrations are therefore reluctant to put in the effort and resources to develop and conduct such courses. There is an IMO course held once a year in Trieste, Italy but the course is too long and too basic. MAIIF has designed a two week course for practicing investigators. We need some one to finance the training courses in different parts of the world. If such finances are forthcoming MAIIF members can provide the trainers.

We need to bring more and more administrations into MAIIF fold. Even among the APEC nations quite a number an not yet our members. Our membership is increasing slowly. We now have members from 34 administrations responsible for over 80 % of world fleet. We would like to see it grow to 100%. We firmly believe that those who can benefit the most from MAIIF participation are those who are less developed in the investigation field. Unfortunately MAIIF cannot assist financially, but we have the best goodwill in the world.

Mr. Chairman, I hope I have been able to convey the flavor of what MAIIF is and what it is doing. A lot more needs to be done. We have a group of people who are willing and capable to undertake the tasks. We will need assistance from interested groups such as this.

I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

This page was last updated on 1 Feb, 2008