Code 17 deficiencies

Code 17 deficiencies are the most common deficiencies

during PSC inspections.

All the deficiencies with code 17 must be rectified before

departure.

And the most common area of doubt is if the PSC need to

re-visit to verify that the code 17 deficiency has been
rectified?

PSC at some port may require to re-visit for verification

and at other ports, it may not be necessary.

Master of the vessel must clarify with the PSC inspector if

the re-verification is required or not.
If re-verification is required, the master must inform the
PSC through the agent after the deficiency has been
rectified.

After the re-verification master must ensure that all code

17 deficiencies have been marked with code 10 which
means that deficiency has been rectified.
Irrespective of if PSC requires the re-verification of
closeout or not, it is important that any code 17 deficiency
is rectified before vessel departs the port.

A vessel that departs the port without rectifying the code

17 deficiency is considered to be an unseaworthy ship.
Taking an unseaworthy ship to the sea can have serious
repercussion for the master of the ship.

If the PSC does not require the re-inspection of the close

out of the deficiencies, it is a good idea to send an email
to the port state through agent informing that the
deficiencies have been rectified.

The email could be something like this.

Deficiencies other than code 17

Code 17 deficiencies require quick action. The

deficiencies need to be closed before departure from the
port.
But that is not the case with other deficiencies such as
code 15 (to be rectified before departure from next port)
or code 18 (to be rectified within 3 months).

While the time period for getting the deficiency rectified is

different in each of these deficiencies, the process is
same.

For example, for code 15 deficiency master must send the

confirmation of close out of deficiency before departure
from next port.

Or if it is required for the PSC inspector to verify the close

out of deficiency, his presence must be requested through
the agent in ample time.

Detainable deficiencies

Detainable deficiencies are serious and hence the process

of close out of detainable deficiencies is also different
from that for other deficiencies.

The usual confusion is what makes a code 17 deficiency a

detainable deficiency.

For example, is “Sart not working” a code 17 deficiency or

a detainable deficiency?
Well, the line that separates the code 17 deficiency from a
detainable deficiency is thin but not too difficult for the
port state officer to identify.

The procedure to use to identify a detainable deficiency is

provided to the port state officers in PSC handbook of the
MOU.

For example, for Paris MOU, below is the main criteria for
PSCO to decide for the detention of the ship.

 ships which are unsafe to proceed to sea will be

detained upon the first inspection irrespective of the
time the ship will stay in port;


 the ship will be detained if the deficiencies on a ship

are sufficiently serious to merit a PSCO returning to
the ship to be satisfied that they have been rectified
before the ship sails.

Paris MOU handbook for PSC inspectors further gives the

deficiency areas that can be considered to be the ground
for detention.

For example, following are the deficiencies under SOLAS

that can be considered to be the ground for detention.
These are just the guidelines. A deficiency in any of these
areas does not mean that the ship will be detained.

For example, let us consider this criterion.

absence, non-compliance or serious deterioration of
lights, shapes or sound signals
Does this mean that vessel will be detained if one
navigational light is found not working?

Absolutely not.

But what if none of the lights are working. Then there is

something serious about the deficiency and in most
certainity, the vessel will be detained.

The procedure of vessel’s detention

If the PSCO decides to detain the ship, they will issue the
notice of detention to the master.
The PSCO will also send the notice of detention to the flag
of the vessel and to the classification society of the
vessel.
Most of the flag state require the masters/company to
notify them in case the vessel is detained by any port
state control.

Master need to confirm with the company if flag state

needs to be informed by the vessel.

Appeal Procedures

If Master/company consider that vessel has been

unreasonably detained, the company can send the appeal
notice to the PSC.
Different PSCs would have different appeal procedures
which can be either found on their website or can be
received through the port agent.
Contrary to common belief, it is not too uncommon for the
flag or shipowner to appeal against the detention of the
vessel.
Rightly so.

If the vessel is detained, it affects ship operation as no

one wants to hire a ship that has recently been detained
by port state control.

Even if the ship gets a hire, it will be on low freight rate as

the shipper would have the bargaining power because of
recent detention of the vessel.
Apart from that company’s brand image gets a beating.
The database of the very low performing ships and
companies is publically posted on the website of most of
the PSC MOUs.
And finally, detention of a ship contributes towards grey or
blacklisting of the flag.
So when so much is at stake, if the master, company or
flag believe that the vessel has been unreasonably
detained, it is always worth to initiate the appeal
procedures.
The appeal does not necessarily be for not agreeing to the
deficiency. The appeal can also be made if the owners or
flag is of the opinion that the deficiency should have been
the code 17 deficiency and not the detainable deficiency.

For example here is the case where the flag state

disagreed with the detention of the vessel.

Close out of detention deficiencies

Once the notifications have been done, it is time to work

on closing the detention deficiencies as soon as possible
to keep the delays to the minimum.

And the first thing we have to do is to understand the

deficiency correctly. We cannot afford to misunderstand
the deficiency and put our efforts towards areas which
would not be required to close out the deficiency.

For example, if the deficiency is related to MARPOL, we

need to know if the deficiency is related to a defective
equipment or an observation related to the certification or
documentation.

PSC deficiency codes help in that.

Let us say that deficiency is related to the enhanced
survey programme and PSC has provided the deficiency
code as 01315.
As we can see that code 013 is related to the certificates
and documentation only. So our efforts need to be only
towards getting the missing document or getting any
pointed error corrected by flag state or classification
society as applicable.

Another thing that we need to keep in mind is about ISM &

ISPS related detention deficiencies.

Detentions because of ISM & ISPS related deficiencies are

closed only after external ISM & ISPS audits.
Again these can be identified by the deficiency codes.
Let me clarify the detainable deficiencies related to ISM
with an example.

It is sometimes wrongly assumed that ISM related

deficiency would mean deficiency related to the
paperwork or documentation.

Not always.

Let us take an example of a deficiency related to in-

operational fire detectors in accommodation.

One fire detector not working will be a code 17 deficiency.

The deficiency will be under code 07106 and this needs to
be corrected before departure.

Two or more fire detectors not working can be a

detainable deficiency as per the professional judgment of
the port state inspector.

The deficiency will again be under code 07106.

As the vessel will be detained, the PSCO will board the
vessel to verify that the fire detectors have been rectified.

Once the PSCO is satisfied, the detention order will be

lifted and the ship will be allowed to sail.

Now let us consider this final situation where say, 10 or

more fire detectors are found not working. Needless to
say that this will be a detainable deficiency under
deficiency code 07106.

But this also gives an impression to the port state

inspector that the ISM code is not effectively implemented
on board.

How?

Because had it been effective, the defective fire detectors

would have been identified during last weekly tests.

So many defective fire detectors point to the fact that the

weekly routines are not being carried as required by the
SMS.

In this case, PSCO would issue a second detainable

deficiency related to ISM code which could be something
like…
The ISM code is not effectively implemented as apparently
no weekly checks on the fire detectors are being carried
out.
So one observation could lead to two detainable
deficiencies.

non-ISM related deficiencies need to be closed by

rectifying the noted observation or defect.

But, the ISM-related deficiencies would only be closed

after a successful external ISM audit which will be done
by the flag or by classification society on behalf of the
flag.