A public letter to the AMSA and all PSC officers:

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE 30 SOEASY TO DETAIN A SHIP

——Appeals from a Old Captain onboard / Capt.Zeng Xiaoyong



Recently,a Singapore flag ship under my command was unfortunately detained during AMSAinspection at port of Fremantle in Australia.

At about local time 1530 hours on 16thFeb., 2017, the AMSA inspector found out the rescue boat engine can be startedand run ahead and astern but failed to change its RPM and the remote controlhandle operated un-smoothly while inspection. The inspector immediately statedthat ship will be detained in this case. After I begged him give a chance formy crew to repair it without detention and finally he agreed if my crew is ableto make engine running in good order and handling in free condition before heleft. All my crew like the prisoner meeting amnesty, they all acted at once todismantle and free the little machine and hoped that they can complete repairsbefore inspector disembarked so as to avoid detention (equal to rebirth fromdead case).

Then Iaccompanied the inspector to my office to make his inspection report. He toldme he thought about my crew is unable to have the engine repaired because ofhuge difference on maintenance between the 2 strokes and 4 strokes machinery. Andthough Chinese crew familiar with huge machinery such as main engine andgenerator, not well-skilled for such little 4 strokes machine due to few boatsin poor China, unlike lots of boat in Australia so as more people well-skilledon it. Meanwhile, the inspector also thinks that most of Chinese shipyard is incapableto build ship in good quality and it is well-known in the world for the poorquality products made in China. During the inspector talked with me, he alwaysmentioned that Chinese crew in lower quality and Chinese Shipping Company inpoor management and Chinese Shipyard in unreliable quality. And some of myofficers also reflected the same issue to me. I admired the inspector for himwell-known my country, but I have to suspect that one inspector who have apretty prejudice against the people will be inspected how can believe theimpartiality on his inspection!

Notwithstanding his prejudice, theinspector should be proud and respected for his professional work. As he saidthat my crew finally not completed the repair job before he disembarked around6pm. However, my crew worked hard and managed to solve this problem and engineRPM can be changed in order next morning. The local technician just did buy thenew parts and then refitted it only. Although local technician did not show hishigh level skill in the case, Chinese crew’s skill seems not as poor as thoughtby the inspector.

So muchstatement foregoing which just tried to make clear and actual facts for you toknow the circumstance, but not to argue right and wrong for the detention. It wasnonsense and not the key point what I want to express and yet my originalintention to make this letter after the ideas revolved in my mind.

As above-mentioned, my ship was detainedjust because the small rescue boat engine not run in good order due toinsufficient knowledge caused inadequate maintenance only. We personally thoughtit was alright the engine can be started and run ahead and astern. RPM issuenot so seriously to endanger crew and ship safety and marine pollution at all. Rescueboat is used to save survival or person in water and we can use lifeboatinstead of it in case of wanted, and as a Master, I promised and ensured tohave it repaired in good order before departure, why so certainly and extremelyto detain my ship without any tolerance? So I want to inquire AMSA what is theindeed intention and purpose to implement PSC inspection at first. Could it besaid that it is for detention only? Surely I think it not be but should be exactlyto protect seaman’s profit and ship safety and prevent marine circumstancepollution from ship. And it means you should be the patron gods to protect seamenbut not the devil to hurt them! Regretfully, your gods not bring blesses butwith nightmares and scares in the most time to all seamen! And also not profitbut unnecessary loss to Shipowners! Sometimesyour PSC have become the tools to grab profit in the world due to some policyand human factors at the different countries and regions.

Disregard those poor countries, in this case, thedetention cost was USD552 for AMSA re-inspection and USD2,810 for replacementof one remote control box and two remote cables and half days attendance of onetechnician in your great and highly civilized western country, the Australia. Youmight be unknown the cost is sufficient to purchase a new whole machine inChina. And if the engine was not repaired in time due to wanted spare parts,ship must shift to anchorage until completion of repairs. So difficult toimagine how much loss to be suffered by the Shipowners because the launch costto anchorage is about USD3000 one trip and the ship’s hire expense is aboutUSD5, 000 to USD20, 000 per day and some unexpected underlying lose! How can wenot suspect that your purpose and motive to detain ship is impure, whenobserving your action as no care of the seamen’s feeling and shipowner’s fateat all?

In fact we are seriously worried about the impartialityof inspection in case of the inspector has prejudiced to carry out inspection. Inthis inspection, excepted above-mentioned prejudices against China by theinspector, while I argued some so-called deficiencies with him, he said thatthe ship has been detained so as all other deficiencies in dispute will not berecorded. Such statements let me have to suspect again the purpose and motiveof detention.

When I again begged the inspector and hopedhe can change the detention (30) to rectify before departure (17), he answeredme it was only possible unless he would retire. I understood his means that hemight lose his task if he canceled this detention at his disposal.

However, did you know how many crewmembers would be disemployeddue to this detention? And could you feel how shameful to the Master about thisevent? Supposed that your detention was good for crew, why didn’t you thinkabout the reasonable suggestion a little bit and consider the feeling ofcrewmember? Goal is the same to rectify deficiency, ensure safety of crewmemberand ship. On the other hand, crewmember and shipowner shall be never unwillingto take corrective action in their subjective. As it can be achieved by thecode 30 or 17, why should it be 30, which pushes the crewmember and shipcompany to an impasse?

Even for a criminal, judge shall considerthe subjective willingness and objective factors before pronouncing the finaljudgment of penalty or punishment, in which mercy was sometimes shown by givingthe criminal a chance to repent. For the crewmembers who are in yourprotection, and the ship company, which support your finance, please, pleasethink about it for one more second and give a little bit tolerance before you heldup the detention butcher knife to the ship and crew. Otherwise, you are massacringyour protégés but not your enemies!

In the short, my mean is very ***:

1. AMSAand PSC inspector’s prejudice to be affected the impartiality of the inspection；

2. AMSAand PSC inspection has become the tools to grab profit and the purpose andmotive of the inspection is impure.

Atlast, I hoped that I am free to make this appeals so as not to cause my company,my ship and myself any unexpected lose.





——To all the seamen brothers whoare hard working at the sea!

——To the respectable Shipownerswho are struggling against the lower shipping market for us!

——And to all of AMSA & PSCofficers who are still keeping clean conscience in their heart！

Remarks: 

1. Igraduated at Guangzhou Marine School in 1992 and as a Master from 2002 tillnow. Total 25 years worked on board and shipyard.

2. The figure17,30, etc is the common code for PSC (Port State Control) inspection, the 17means deficiency must be rectified before departure and 30 means seriousdeficiency must be detain ship for correction.

3. Rescueboat, a small and open type boat which driven by engine and equipped on boardto save person in water.

4. Confinedto my poor English knowledge, all contents should be based on the Chinese wordsif any disputes/doubts happened.




致AMSA及天下PSC检查官们的一封公开信：

请高抬贵手不要轻易写下30而滞留船舶

———— 一位老船长的心声 · 曾小勇



最近，由我指挥的一艘新加坡籍船舶在澳大利亚的FREMANTLE港接受AMSA检查时很不幸被滞留扣船了。

2017年2月16日下午3点半左右，AMSA官员在检查中发现我轮的救助艇艇机虽然能启动，能进车倒车，但不能变速，遥控手柄操纵不灵活。检查官当即提出要滞留，经我解释求情，才答应给我最后一次机会：在他检查结束离开前让机器运转正常，手柄活络就可以不滞留。我的船员如蒙大赦，当即全体出动拆解活络这个小机器，希望能在检查官离开前修复机器而死里逃生。

然后我陪检查官到我办公室写他的检查报告，检查官告诉我他认为我的船员是没有能力修复的，因为4冲程机器与2冲程机器维护保养差异很大，而一般中国船员虽然对大机器（主机、发电机）比较熟悉，但却不太精通小的4冲程机器，因为中国穷游艇少，不像澳大利亚的钓鱼艇游艇普遍，精通这种小机器的人也多。而且他认为多数中国造船厂的建造质量并不让人放心，更不要说中国制造的产品质量差也是全世界有名的。这期间检查官和我谈话时，多次提到中国船员素质不高，中国航运公司管理不善，中国造船厂也大多建造质量不可靠。后来我的几位陪检高级船员也向我反应了这个问题，这让我一方面佩服这位检查官对中国的熟悉了解程度，但另一方面也让我不得不怀疑一位心中对被检查对象抱有深深成见的检查官员，又怎么能让人相信他检查的公正性呢？

抛开其对中国的偏见，该检查官的个人业务水平倒确实值得让人钦佩！因为最后如他所言我的船员并没能在他离船前（约下午6点）完成修理任务。但我的船员经过不懈努力，终于在第二天上午解决了问题让机器可以正常变速，而特意在当地请来的维修技工仅仅是买来新的备件重新安装而已，在这件事上虽然没能显示出当地技工的高水平，但中国船员的技术水平和素质似乎也没有这位检查官认为的那么差啊。

前面叙述了那么多，仅仅是想让大家能大致了解事发当时的实际情况，并不是想要分辨扣船的是非对错，这已经没有意义也不是我想说的重点，更不是我思虑再三而特意写这封公开信的本意。

从上面可以看出，我轮被滞留扣船，仅仅因为一个小小救助艇的机器没能正常运转，充其量也就是船员认知不足导致保养不到位而已，以为机器能启动和运转就可以了，而不能变速对船员和船舶安全以及环境污染并没有关系。救助艇是救人的，就算没有也可以用救生艇救人，何况我船长也保证开航前修复，为何就一定要扣船这么极端呢？所以我想请问AMSA，PSC检查当初实施的目的和宗旨究竟是什么？难道就是为了扣船？我的理解是你们的目的和宗旨肯定是为了保护船员利益和船舶安全以及防止海洋环境的污染。也就是你们应该是船员的保护神而不是恶魔啊!可实际上你们这群神带给我们广大船员的多数不是福音而是噩梦和恐惧！同样带给船东的也不是利益而是不必要的损失！因为不同国家地区政策以及人为因素掺杂，很多时候你们已经沦为谋利的工具了！穷的国家不说，就以你们伟大的西方文明国家澳大利亚而言，这次也就更换一个遥控盒和两根控制线及一位技工半天的时间，最后的收费是2810美元，还有AMSA官员的复检费552美元。而这样的费用已经足够在中国买一台新机器了。假如没有配件而造成不能及时修复，船舶肯定还得移泊到锚地，那么锚地往来人员的交通费（约3000

美元一次）以及船舶滞期（船舶租金每天5千到2万美元）和潜在的坏影响带来的损失会有多大就更难以想象了！你们这种不顾船员感受，不管船东死活的做法怎能不让人怀疑你们扣船的动机和目的不纯呢？

而在检查中因为检查官的偏见而带来的公正性的问题也确实是让船员担心不已的事实。在本次检查中，除了上面提到的检查官对中国的各种成见外，当我和检查官争辩一些所谓的缺陷时，他说已经扣船了，所以别的有争辩的缺陷就不用记录了。这让我不得不又一次怀疑扣船的目的性了。

而当我再次向检查官求情希望能将扣船（30）改为开航前改正（17）时，他回答我除非他退休才有可能。我明白检查官的意思是如果他私自改变扣船决定可能会失去工作。可是你们知不知道？你们扣一次船又有多少船员会被解雇而同样失去工作呢？而扣船给船长带来的耻辱感你们又能体会多少呢？如果你们真的是为了船员好，为什么就不能多考虑考虑船员的合理建议和感受呢？目的都是改正缺陷，保证船员和船舶安全，船员和船公司也并不是主观上不愿意改正，30和17都可以做到开航前改正，为什么就非要选择把船员把船公司往绝路上逼的30呢？

即便是对罪犯，法官量刑时还会考虑其实施犯罪的主观意愿和客观因素而予以区别对待，给予从宽发落的机会。可面对需要你们保护的船员，养着你们并支撑着你们存在的船公司，在你们高举扣船“屠刀”的一刹那，难道就不能多考虑一秒，多给一分慈悲吗？要知道你们***的对象不是你们的敌人而是需要你们保护的对象啊！

综上所述，其实我想说的非常简单：

1. AMSA和PSC检查官的偏见会影响检查的公正性；

2. AMSA和PSC检查很多时候已经沦为谋利的工具，其目的和动机不纯；

最后，我希望作为船长发表呼吁的言论自由还有吧，别因此给我，船舶及公司带来意外的损失。



——谨以此文献给在海上努力工作的海员兄弟们!

——在低迷航运市场中苦苦挣扎求生存的船东老板们！

——以及那些良知尚存的AMSA和天下PSC检查官们！


附注：1. 本人于1992年毕业于广州海运学校驾驶专业，从2002年开始任船长至今，在船舶及船厂工作25年了。

2. 17,30等数字是PSC（PORT STATE CONTROL港口国监管）检查中通用的代码，17指缺陷需要在开航前纠正，30指滞留船舶直到缺陷纠正。其实PSC除了澳大利亚叫AMSA外，美国叫COAST GUARD.叫法不同而已其实性质一样。
3.救助艇，是船上专门配备用来营救落水人员的一种开放型机动小艇。
4.限于自己的英文水平，如有疑义请以中文内容为准。

免责申明：本文仅代表作者观点，不代表中国海员之家立场。其真实性及原创性未能得到中国海员之家证实，在此感谢原作者的辛苦创作，如转载涉及版权等问题，请作者与我们联系，我们将在第一时间处理，谢谢！联系邮箱：cnisu@foxmail.com