International Civil Aviation Organization

Transcription

1 International Civil Aviation Organization WORKING PAPER 8 August 2012 ENGLISH ONLY Agenda item 4 ICAO/IMO JOINT WORKING GROUP ON HARMONIZATION OF AERONAUTICAL AND MARITIME SEARCH AND RESCUE (ICAO/IMO JWG-SAR) NINETEENTH MEETING Hong Kong, China, 10 to 14 September 2012 SAR operational principles, procedures and techniques Report of a conference on maritime mass rescue operations held in Gothenburg, Sweden, 3-5 June 2012 (Presented by IMRF) SUMMARY Executive summary: This paper comprises a summary report of a conference on maritime mass rescue operations, organized by the IMRF and hosted by the Swedish Sea Rescue Society in Gothenburg, Sweden, 3-5 June 2012 Action to be taken: Paragraph 7 Introduction 1.1 The International Maritime Rescue Federation (IMRF) exists primarily to encourage and facilitate the development of maritime SAR worldwide. It numbers among its Members many of the world s leading SAR organisations, as well as smaller, start-up organisations. Among its activities, the IMRF runs a number of projects. One of these is a project on maritime mass rescue operations (MRO). 1.2 To date the IMRF s MRO project has included two well-attended and well-received conferences hosted by IMRF Member the Swedish Sea Rescue Society at the Society s headquarters near Gothenburg. The first conference, held in June 2010, which scoped the

2 - 2 - MRO issue, was reported to the Joint Working Group and to COMSAR 15 (see COMSAR 15/6/3). 1.3 This paper comprises an interim report on the second conference, held 3-5 June The conference was attended by a total of 128 delegates, representing 62 organisations from a total of 27 nations. This report summarises the conference s main conclusions, and the areas of work which delegates suggested the IMRF should consider undertaking as its project continues. These latter suggestions are now under consideration within the IMRF. 1.4 Relevant points will also be reported to COMSAR 17. IMRF MRO project aims & objectives 2.1 The overall aims and objectives of the IMRF s MRO project are to: Provide an international focus on mass rescue at, or by, sea Provide a forum for discussion Identify specific problems which would benefit from further research & development Identify potential amendments to international regulation and guidance Compile and host a dynamic, web-based compendium of practical data. 2.2 In view of delegates comments at the first conference, specific additional objectives were set for the second in the series: Provide interactive sessions to enable discussion of all aspects of a maritime MRO Provide practical exercise opportunities highlighting aspects of MROs Agree practical projects for MRO improvements for the IMRF to take forward 2.3 In general it is the IMRF s intention to move on from the initial focus on MRO problems to identify actions aimed at mitigating those problems. Conference structure and speakers 3.1 The conference began with a live exercise, in which delegates were invited to abandon a harbour ferry into liferafts, to enable them to experience aspects of an MRO from the casualty s point of view. 3.2 The conference s keynote speakers were Mr Jan Mosander, a passenger survivor of the Costa Concordia, and Ms Mary Landry, the United States Coast Guard s Director of Incident Management and Preparedness Policy. The conference was also addressed by Ms Catharina Elmsäter-Svärd, Minister for Infrastructure at the Swedish Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications. 3.3 Presentations were given on lessons learned from MRO case studies; accounting for people involved; domestic ferry safety in the developing world; passenger shipping on the Greenland coast; the FIRST Project (see vessel triage; and on

3 - 3 - understanding the MRO challenge in general. 3.4 However, the main focus of the conference was on discussion of MRO issues, for which the delegates divided into six working groups. Their discussions were mostly based on a series of questions prepared by the conference planning team under main headings of planning, coordination and response but discussion was not restricted to these questions. The working groups were asked to bear two core questions in mind: what improvements can be made to our mass rescue planning and response; and how can the IMRF help to achieve this? Summary of the conference conclusions 4.1 General.1 We must not just think of SOLAS passenger ships when considering MROs. Many more people die in domestic ferries, particularly in the developing world, than in ships subject to the IMO regulations. An MRO can also arise from, for example, a fishing fleet being overwhelmed by the weather; a passenger aircraft ditching; a major accident in the offshore industry; or a calamity ashore which requires a response by sea. A special class of MRO is that of economic migrants in distress..2 The infrequency of MROs, in the developed world at least, is itself a part of the problem. Lack of experience leads inevitably to lack of awareness and hence preparedness, unless this gap is filled by training. 4.2 Planning.1 Routine responses and planning in isolation are insufficient. The various responding organisations plans should be specific and carefully coordinated, and must be kept up-to-date. As many of the likely responders as possible should be involved in the planning process maritime, air and land; governmental and nongovernmental..2 The plans should be tailored so that those who could not be involved in compiling them (passing ships, for example; the additional facilities required to fill the resource gap in an MRO) can be efficiently added at short notice..3 Passenger ships on international voyages are required to prepare a SAR cooperation plan. For ferries, this plan should be prepared in conjunction with the relevant SAR services. For cruise ships passing through many SAR Regions such joined-up planning is obviously more difficult, and there is a generic planning option. Some States have also applied the SAR cooperation planning requirement to domestic ferries. The SAR cooperation planning requirement should be reviewed as part of the reaction to the Costa Concordia case..4 Overall, while the planning process may be complex, the aim should be simple execution. If responders do not understand the plan on the day, they will not follow it. Keeping the planning effective means regular training and exercising, and reviewing the plan in light of the exercise results, as well as in the light of

4 - 4 - experience gained in actual incidents..5 A risk-based approach and generic planning were advocated, as was the establishment of an asset register a list of the resources actually available for an MRO; on land as well as at sea. As an MRO is only one instance of what some call major incidents and others complex emergencies, the necessary planning should encompass all hazards, with appropriate detail included for each..6 One element of MRO complexity is the lack of full and up-to-date information. This is especially true at the outset: the nature or extent of the problem is often unclear. Checklists are useful in this respect, and the vessel triage system developed in Finland was cited as a good example. The planning should include triggers which enable the scale of the problem to be quickly identified and the correct level of enhanced response instigated..7 Those involved in the planning process should include those organisations normally involved in maritime SAR; the shoreside emergency services; industry (principally the maritime, offshore and aviation industries, but also acknowledging that some land-based activities may create an MRO); law enforcement, immigration, diplomatic, medical, welfare and environmental agencies; voluntary support organisations; flag and port State authorities; classification societies; and the news media. 4.3 Funding.1 The cost of preparing for what is an unlikely event was acknowledged. Delegates discussed whether a tax should be levied on passenger shipping in order to fund SAR or whether a portion of existing taxes and duties might be redirected..2 Comparisons were drawn with the aviation and offshore industries, and with the polluter pays model as regards environmental protection. Should specific charges for appropriate SAR services be made and, if so, how? Hard economic realities must be borne in mind. MROs are resource-intensive, but rare. The latter point is, of course, to be welcomed; but it makes justification of precautionary expenditure, whether by industry or Governments, difficult. 4.4 Command & control.1 Command, control, coordination and communications structures should be agreed at the planning stage. The value of having an overall commander with a well-trained interdisciplinary staff in support, and the legal power to enforce action if necessary, was generally accepted. Regional planning was urged, to enable a good level of understanding to be developed between national commanders..2 The idea of establishing Regional MRCCs and/or international MRO coordination centres was discussed although the difficulties inherent in this concept were also noted..3 The response role of the Company the operator (and cruise ship operators in particular) was acknowledged. The Company s place in the command and control structure also needs to be clearly established and understood. 4.5 Communications.1 The need to know is an important concept. Not every unit needs to know every

5 - 5 - detail of the plan: indeed, this would be impracticable. But each unit does need to know that there is a plan; their own part in it; and who they should report to..2 It was agreed that the casualty must be included in the communications and coordination structure whenever possible..3 Continuing examples of ships masters being reluctant to raise the alarm early are frustrating early alerting is of great importance to a successful outcome..4 There should be a nominated person within the Company authorised to make decisions with whom the RCC can communicate direct. Practising three-way communications between the ship, the RCC and the Company response team ashore is inexpensive and will be of great benefit should the three have to respond to a real emergency..5 Establishing clear lines of communication between responders is of great importance. Wherever possible, face-to-face communication is to be preferred: the exchange of liaison officers assists in this respect. Delegates also discussed cloud computing of all relevant incident data and information, to be collected by stakeholders as required although warnings were sounded about over-reliance on technology..6 The formalised procedures already recommended for international use are beneficial, as they help to overcome language barriers both between people whose native languages are different and between those who share a common language but not the same technical jargon; a particular problem when maritime and shoreside responders are communicating with each other..7 As regards communication with people waiting to be rescued, enhanced communications and location devices were recommended for all types of survival equipment, including individual equipment. These might include handheld radiotelephony devices, with hand generators, and AIS SARTs. 4.6 On-scene coordination.1 The duties of an On Scene Coordinator (OSC) as described in the IAMSAR Manual cannot all be carried out by an ordinary merchant ship or SAR unit: IAMSAR should allow for different levels of capability..2 The essential requirements of the OSC role are the ability to observe and report to the RCC, with capacity (human as well as technical) for multi-channel communication. The OSC should be able to help develop the SAR plan, and to recognise when the proposed plans need to change. He / she should also be able to keep track of survivors, knowing the number in each rescue unit and where they are being taken. In selecting an OSC, the SAR Mission Coordinator should have these capabilities in mind, and also the endurance of the proposed unit in terms of crew endurance as well as fuel..3 Relevant ships officers (on ferry routes, for example, and aboard suitable government craft) should be specifically trained as OSCs, including bridge resource and crisis management training..4 In addition, while air support is not always an option, and the use of aircraft should be carefully thought through (see 4.12), air space management may be

6 - 6 - required. The appointment of an Aircraft Coordinator (ACO) will depend on the availability of a suitable unit, again with sufficient endurance, and on the proximity of established Air Traffic Services..5 Overall, the importance of well-prepared potential OSCs is clear. The communications link between SAR Mission Coordinator and OSC in the event of an incident is crucial. This, too, is a matter for specific training, in this case including RCC personnel. 4.7 Places of safety.1 Places of safety where shelter, sustenance, triage, medical care and welfare support may be provided should be carefully assessed. Good communications are necessary; as are improved systems for accounting for those involved (see 4.13)..2 The decision as to where to land survivors is an important one, with many priorities and needs to consider. It is not a decision that should be left to individual units..3 The place of safety function in remote areas popular with the cruise industry can best be fulfilled by other passenger ships in the area but coordination to ensure that response times are within survival times then becomes essential, as does real capability to recover people from survival craft etc. (See 4.9 & 4.11.) 4.8 Testing the plans.1 Standardised tabletop and coordination exercises, involving as many potential stakeholders as possible (including shoreside responders), will assist planning and preparation. Lessons learned should be widely disseminated, preferably internationally..2 The key point is that MROs and other complex incidents should be specifically planned for, with top-level ownership. The general feeling among conference delegates was that the planning so far has been insufficient. 4.9 Remote areas.1 Remote area operations are a matter of response time, SAR facility endurance, and capacity compared to survivability. Remote areas are not only to be found in high latitudes. Any area far from dedicated SAR resources and/or places of safety is remote in SAR terms: these include mid-oceans and many mid-latitude coastal areas..2 In at least some areas of passenger ship activity there is currently a mis-match between the ships capacity and rescue resource capability. Coordination (or pairing ) of passenger ships, so that they are planned into the response to each other s emergencies, is a logical means of filling this gap. However, the concept depends on the market being sufficient to maintain it..3 Self-sustainability prior to and during rescue is also pivotal. Following an accident people should be enabled to sustain themselves for a minimum of five days..4 Who is responsible for ensuring that sufficient SAR resource is available to deal with an MRO? Under the ISM Code the responsibility to prepare for and respond to emergencies involving their ships clearly lies with the Companies (the

7 - 7 - operators) themselves: the responsibility is not the Master s alone. But Companies should not have to provide their own SAR facilities although this is not strictly the responsibility of the coastal State either. The Maritime SAR Convention only requires its signatories to ensure that assistance is rendered to any person in distress at sea [...] as they are able to do so. Currently, industry does not have a clear view of what States envisage for the future..5 What is clear is that the ISM Code s emergency preparedness principle must mean that the Company should be ready and able to work with the relevant SAR services which should mean joint planning and exercises, as well as specific crew (and, to some extent, passenger) training. It also implies that nearby shipping must be able to fulfil their own responsibility to assist those in distress. As well as recovering survivors (see 4.11) this should include other support, such as towing..6 It is also clear that State and industry should collaborate on addressing the SAR resource issue, including ensuring reliable communications. Should SAR hardware be seasonally deployed in cruising areas that lack such cover and again, if so, how should this be funded? Should limits be placed on passenger numbers or cruise ship routeing (depending in part on ship design and equipment)? Should position and intended movement reporting schemes (utilising AIS and LRIT as appropriate) be mandatory in remote areas?.7 Delegates also discussed preventative measures, including enhanced ship design and equipment and specific navigation training, particularly for cruise ships trading in high latitudes, and whether permits to operate, based on the achievement of clear standards, should be required The Company passenger ship operators.1 The Company response should include a 24/7 team able to provide information about the ship s design, layout, equipment and emergency response options including evacuation plans, and manifests listing crew and passengers with relevant medical information. Relevant States should be able to assess the Company s risk assessment and emergency planning, and exercises to increase awareness of key factors should be encouraged..2 The issue must also be considered from the passenger shipping industry s point of view. Where MRO planning happens, the focus tends to be on fixed ferry routes. But for a cruise operator the MRO risk is worldwide and it is often unclear what support can be expected in a particular area. In some cases local support simply cannot be relied upon. The Company will bring a great deal of back-up resource to bear; arranging accommodation and onward transportation, for example. This involvement should be included in the local authorities planning; but it is difficult for a cruise operator to directly influence the planning in each country their ships pass Recovery.1 The conference noted the recent agreement at the IMO that all ships trading internationally should have a recovery capability that is, they will be required to have ship-specific plans and procedures for recovery of persons from the water. The conference considered that the development of a measurable performance

8 - 8 - standard for recovery systems is still necessary; and that the development of a recovery capability by all vessels should become mandatory..2 Related to this is the question of the interface between lifesaving appliances and rescue units. The whole recovery process needs further work, but particular attention should be given to how to get people out of their survival craft, which appear to be designed primarily with entry in mind and with little regard to passenger mobility. Being in a liferaft does not make you a survivor. Should all lifesaving appliances be designed to be recoverable? Enhanced survival equipment for certain areas high latitudes, for example was also discussed..3 Knowing what assets have what capabilities for MRO is a very useful preparatory measure. Defined standards might be established as a reference guide, and/or regional databases which, if kept rigorously up to date, would act as resource allocation aids Use of aircraft.1 The use of aircraft was discussed, particularly in relation to remote area MROs, where they should be able to provide enhanced communications and to monitor the situation, as well as boosting the morale of survivors by simply being there..2 Trained observers aboard such aircraft are recommended, as is the ability to deploy additional location, communications and survival equipment and trained SAR and triage personnel..3 In addition to assisting with traditional communications including providing links into remote areas aircraft might provide the RCC with an overview of the scene, including the possibility of streaming live video. Such an overview can be very useful in complex scenarios, particularly those involving a large number of units on scene..4 Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and the use of other sensing equipment for SAR should be developed Accounting for people.1 Accounting for the people involved in an MRO is a major challenge throughout, from the initial muster to registration at the place of safety. 100% accuracy may not be practicable on-scene. The focus should be on efficient evacuation and rescue processes with fail-safes (searches on scene, for example) built in. In the early stages the emphasis should be on trying to ensure that no-one is missed..2 The focus will shift at some point to positively accounting for everyone involved. Depending on the speed at which the incident develops, this may be possible at the outset. Otherwise, people may be counted in survival craft or, more practicably, once aboard rescue units and/or when landed. Aids to this process already exist: they should be tested and, if effective, more widely used. In the meantime the difficulty of counting people, even in relatively controlled conditions, should not be underestimated.

9 - 9 - Proposed IMRF action 5.1 As requested, the delegates at the conference made a number of proposals for the IMRF to consider including in its ongoing MRO project work. These proposals are summarised below. Please note that the IMRF is still discussing which of them it would be appropriate to take forward. 5.2 Raising awareness.1 The IMRF was asked to maintain the momentum for improvement started in this conference series by continuing to highlight the areas of concern and potential improvements, working closely with other interested parties..2 The IMRF should bring the particular concerns about remote area mass rescue operations to the IMO s attention, highlighting the current SAR resource deficit..3 The IMRF should urge all stakeholders governments, emergency response organisations, and industry to plan and train together. 5.3 Sharing experience.1 The IMRF should aim to become an expert organisation as regards MROs, building up a bank of internationally-recognised experts from among its Members, together with a database of generic guidance, checklists and standard operating procedures..2 The IMRF should encourage local and/or regional initiatives to build MRO capability. To this end, the IMRF should consider establishing regional working groups to collect, develop and share MRO knowledge. In particular the IMRF should encourage the sharing of lessons learned, whether in real incidents or in exercises..3 To facilitate this sharing of information, and in addition to hosting reference materials on its website, the IMRF should facilitate MRO workshops around the world. 5.4 Auditing progress.1 It was suggested that the IMRF might seek to establish standards over and above those required by the IMO, and an IMRF-approved audit process intended to help users measure their MRO capability and improve it if necessary..2 As a part of this process the IMRF should encourage the exercising of MRO plans. 5.5 Specific issues.1 The IMRF should highlight MRO communications difficulties and shortcomings and potential solutions..2 The IMRF might initiate improvement of the on-scene coordination guidance currently in the IAMSAR Manual and contribute to the development of model courses, with remote area operations particularly in mind.

10 Vessels of opportunity are another matter that might be usefully addressed. It is such vessels that must fill the gap identified in the IMO s current definition of a mass rescue operation. To do so fully, these vessels need to be able to recover people in distress. With the IMO s new regulation on recovery capability in mind, the IMRF should initiate a review of the IMO s Guide to Recovery Techniques, and should promote the use of efficient recovery systems such as those being developed in the FIRST Project. 5.6 Another conference.1 There was general support for a further conference in the IMRF s MRO series..2 It was suggested that the next conference should be based on lectures for experts, and that more representatives of industry should be invited to attend, to ensure a proper balance of response organisations. Conclusion 6.1 As noted, the IMRF is considering which of the actions proposed in paragraph 5 it might take forward. 6.2 The IMRF will report briefly on its conclusions to COMSAR 17, both as regards MRO generally and in the specific context of the IMO s renewed passenger ship safety review. Action requested of the JWG 7.1 The JWG is requested to consider this summary report and whether any action is required on its part. 7.2 The Group s attention is drawn to the following specific aspects which may require further work at the IMO, including by the Group itself: MROs in remote areas the on-scene coordination guidance in the IAMSAR Manual recovery, including a review of the Guide to Recovery Techniques.