Have you actually read MSC1093 or MSC152(78)?? obviously not.

1093 clearly states that ship crew may perfom weekly, montly inspections but all other inspections servicing or repairs should be conducted by the manufacturers rep or a person trained and certified by the manufacturer.

When repairs, thorough servicing and annual servicing are completed a fit for purpose staement must be issued by the manufacturers representative. 

MSC152(78) states in the ammended text of SLOAS iii/20/3.1 that maintenance, testing and inspections should be carried out based on the guidelines developed by the organisation which is MSC1093.

What is it that you dont understand??? That is clear enough is it not.

These regulations are brought about to enhance safety and try to eliminate rouge 3rd party servicing companies that have never been trained, have no technical specifications of the equipment and no access to genuine spare parts.

For your claim that 1093 is not obligatory based on 1 flag state comments then I suggest you contact other flag states that even implemented MSC1093 before 1 july as well as DNV and ABS to answer your claim.

As a response on Alemmis e-mail:

 If you think that a person trained by the manufacturer is capable of performing skilled maintenance to lifesaving equipment you are a little naive.

This means that after a training of 3 days or more (5 days??) somebody can perform this service???? 

The manufacturers will only certify companies who will be no competition! 

This is the perfect opportunity for them to eliminate any competition.

Another thing: The amandment reads "should" and not "must".

This means that  if you are authorized by the flag authorities or classification, you can perform the annual or 5 year inspections.

Andrew.

You have completely missed the point of the post and it certainly is what one would expect when receiving a reply from the very party, which started this disaster (for most) in the first place.

As a Schat-Harding representative (how is China?), readers of this board would have expected you to have been more aware of the market and how it is reacting to the recent amendments to SOLAS – which remain as written and entitled within Annex 1 of the MSC.1/Circ1206 ‘Guidelines for periodic servicing and maintenance of lifeboats, launching appliances and on-load release gear’. It seems that you yourself may not have read the documents referred to either, as it clearly states, within the title the word ‘Guidelines’ and therefore, by direct implication, them not being an obligation or statutory requirement.

It doesn’t really surprise us that certain flag states have implemented the circular prior to July 1^st,  (although you don’t mention which).  By obliging with their mandate to minimise/reduce accidents, most flag states would. Of course, a natural target for all those involved in the maritime community is for them to aim to reduce accidents so far as is possible. However, it is certain that many flag states will be implementing similar measures to the UK’s MCA and where they won’t, we already have reports from some of our members that owners will re-flag to administrations that will. A senior officer of the IMO refers, and I quote’ the administrations must have been asleep when this recommendation / circular was accepted’ ‘This circular is causing more confusion than ever’ ‘It remains the clear choice of owners/operators of vessels, in consultation with their administration as to whom they should retain to provide services incorporated within MSC1206’

We are quite certain that all responsible owners, administrations and class societies would not allow LSA equipment to be serviced by rogue companies and we would always advise our members to employ parties which satisfy their administrations requirements and have a long and strong track record in the industry.

Do you honestly think that such alternative companies and their staff will forget, overnight, what they have spent years completing and performing in, lets say, Singapore for example? Of course not and your naivety in thinking such surprises us too. No respectful company in this market will ever perform practices referred to you as ‘rogue’. It would be self defeating and commercial suicide to contemplate such actions. That is why such companies, that are in the marketplace and whom offer non OEM services, are held in such high regard by administrations, class reps, owners/managers alike.

Schat-Harding have, by all accounts, been frustrating their customers for years with a lack of customer satisfaction, lack of availability of personnel and spares and high prices. All reasons which have led to the creation of those companies you regard as competition.  If you think that our members and those that we have consulted with in other bodies worldwide will be held to some form of ransom by your organisation (as the lifeboat and davit market dominator) then it is quite certain that you should prepare yourselves for a shock and your five Chinese engineers that are now approved, per your website, following a short course, should start preparing their resumes.  

V Surchenko - BK

As a reply on TELB.

This will happen in short future.

The MSC 1206 will be discussed again with the flag states very shortly. I hope they accept the MCA point of view. In the UK several jobs have already been done since 1st of July by "uncertified" companies approved by the flag authority because the manufacturer was not able to perform this service.

Msafe

See new MSN1803, from UK National Administration, the MCA. Annex 3 includes provision of full approval, on same basis as manufacturers, of Independent Lifeboat Servicing Companies.

 Linl follows

http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-mld-page.htm?textobjid=C8CDA8E26C28091F