lack of maritime authority control?

[Sasha]

Another "old lady" didn't arrive a destination.
Panamanian flag GEROI ARSENALA, launched over 36 years ago, IMO 8727604, sank in the Black sea on her way from Russia to Turkey.
Off 12 crew members up to now only 3 rescued.
Every time i hear about incident with veteran ships sailing under "third party" flags and owned by small companies  I concern whether technical condition of the ship and professional condition of its crew were satisfied.
Should we consider crews of such ships as a risk group? Should be increased technical and professional control after them? For example by a port authority? I remember random audits on my ships conduced by US port authorities. Any raised non-conformance was required to be closed before leaving the port.

[pieter melissen]

Perhaps a Port Authority could issue a permit for such ship to leave the port only when under tow. On the other hand, that would probably prevent the shipowner from doing anything and the burden of the removal of the ship will fall on the Port Authority.

Edit: I may have erroneously assumed that the ship was heading for a Turkish scrapyard.

[davidships]

The Turkish-owned Panama-flag ship in question: http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/search.php?query=8727604&x=36
It seems that the ship, of the sea-river Volgo-Balt type, broke in two in stormy conditions. Unlike some other sea-river types this design seems to have been more successful from the structural point of view - only one total loss listed out of well over a hundred in service, and that was a slow capsize after deck cargo shifted.  But I doubt that the ship had been well-maintained in recent years.

The port inspections you mention - under Port State Control - do apply generally and this ship has been visited regularly.  The subjects of individual PSC inspections vary, especially now that they cover the Maritime Labour Convention as well as IMO requirements.  

In the case of GEROI ARSENALA, there were two inspections this year and four in 2016.  Nothing in the list of defect heading concerning ship structure (cracks, rusting, hatch covers etc) but plenty which suggest poor crew management ashore or on-board, or both.  But, as Capt Ted may point out, the quality of PSC inspections also varies enormously from the very focused and well-planned to the cursory, incompetent or corrupt.

[husni]

The Turkish-owned Panama-flag ship in question: http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/search.php?query=8727604&x=36
It seems that the ship, of the sea-river Volgo-Balt type, broke in two in stormy conditions. Unlike some other sea-river types this design seems to have been more successful from the structural point of view - only one total loss listed out of well over a hundred in service, and that was a slow capsize after deck cargo shifted.  But I doubt that the ship had been well-maintained in recent years.

The port inspections you mention - under Port State Control - do apply generally and this ship has been visited regularly.  The subjects of individual PSC inspections vary, especially now that they cover the Maritime Labour Convention as well as IMO requirements.  

In the case of GEROI ARSENALA, there were two inspections this year and four in 2016.  Nothing in the list of defect heading concerning ship structure (cracks, rusting, hatch covers etc) but plenty which suggest poor crew management ashore or on-board, or both.  But, as Capt Ted may point out, the quality of PSC inspections also varies enormously from the very focused and well-planned to the cursory, incompetent or corrupt.

Yes..agree. as my know port clearance based on Master Sailing Declaration form..

[Captain Ted]

@ davidships

Naaaaaahh,,,, all is said already on that one :-)