Unravelling the confusion around the MEG4 mooring guidelines

The problem, he noted, starts when third-party bodies are stating on the first page of the certificates that ropes comply with the MEG4, then on the next pages of that same certificate, reservations are made. He emphasised that studying all the pages of the certificate is of main importance.

Showing a redacted certificate, he said: “In this example, it was decided by a fellow rope producer to reduce the endurance test to 90% [of the test cycle]. Besides eroding the safety aspect, it will also make it impossible to compare the performance indicators of the products with each other.”

Next to this, he said statements on factory work certificates which include phrases like “pending type approval” and “to be advised” may look nice, but are questionable when that vendor cannot produce a statement from the class society that the tests are really in progress.

Has MEG4 had an impact on the industry? Polling of delegates attending the event suggested it had, with over 60% responding it had changed their line selection process. But there is still confusion out there. Nearly 10% replied that MEG4 had brought about no change in their line selection process.

Takeaways

What are the takeaways the experts can offer from the webinar? (OCIMF), Technical Adviser – Nautical, Capt. Sanchay Srivastava said: “MAIB investigated that incident (which was a driving force for MEG4) and categorised it as a serious marine casualty, which led to significant life-changing injuries to one of my colleagues. It is not an easy thing to digest. I think if we can at least work towards preventing, reducing, and hopefully one day eliminating these incidents collectively, I think MEG4 has achieved its goal.”

Samson Rope’s vice president of Research & Development, Kris Volpenhein said: “Everything in the MEG4 book and beyond should be focussed on user safety. It is important to re-iterate that change is hard. It is also important and a good thing these discussions are happening and these confusions are not just brushed to the side and we start to raise critical questions. From a rope manufacturer’s perspective the one key element is that there is not really a single harmonised code for mooring system design. It seems that MEG4 is the starting of a process pushing for that. If you overlay that with criticality in the role that mooring ropes play in the mooring system, it creates a very challenging situation from the get-go. Seafarers have for a long time managed that criticality, the ships have gotten bigger and it has become more important that these things are in place and maintenance is well understood and operated and that safety happens at the point of use.”

Lankhorst Ropes’ Mr Baaij noted that MEG4 is a complicated document and that the market needs time to digest it and implement MEG4. He said: “We (Lankhorst) are reaching out to support owners and operators. We have completed the certification to the MEG4 requirement and we also have a mooring line management system. MEG4 is designed to improve the crew safety. It helps the vessel owner and operator make a better rope purchase decision. The key question is: “Is the rope fully tested to MEG4?” It pays to be curious and ask rope manufacturers and suppliers questions. We are there to help you with the risk analysis and achieve the best possible result.”

In summary, while MEG4 may not be as prescriptive as some might desire, the confusion is creating a dialogue between users, the rope manufacturers, and shipyards. All the participants of this webinar are making themselves available with the aim of resolving the confusion by reaching out to support the industry.

The experts answer your questions

After the ‘Resolving MEG4 market confusion,’ webinar, the experts answered a variety of questions:

Question: What is the one single thing that rope manufacturers or vessel operators could do that would most help resolve confusion regarding MEG4 requirements ?

KV | Integrate education and training all the way down to the crew and provide tools that address the key points at the point of use (e.g. inspection decision making, usage tracking, etc)

HPB | Lankhorst gives trainings and has a mooring rope manual on request.

SS | Refer MEG4 and engage in a dialogue with each other.

Question | What is the level of collaboration with the shipbuilders, with regards to mooring arrangement of ships, both existing and those built prior MEG4?

Samson’s Kris Volpenhein (KV) | This is an under-resourced area of ship and mooring system design and it is important to look at optimising the process, but the multitude of stakeholders made this a difficult process.

Lankhorst Ropes’ Hans-Pieter Baaij (HPB) | Lankhorst Ropes is working with shipbuilders to come to the best arrangements.

OCIMF’s Capt. Sanchay Srivastava (CC) | MEG4 represents best known mooring technology and practice. Importantly, it also reflects the move by industry and regulators towards human-centred design principles, a systems approach to mooring equipment in general and a more holistic application to selection, inspection, maintenance, and retirement of mooring lines. This should drive a more open dialogue between respective stakeholders as compared to pre-MEG4 times.

Question | From a sailor’s point of view, it is sometimes very difficult to convince SIRE inspectors due to their limited understanding of MEG4, which in turn results in inspection remarks. How is OCIMF trying to clear this confusion?

SS | OCIMF website is getting updated with FAQs to further help industry towards improving understanding of MEG4. SIRE inspectors are included in internal bulletins and receive refresher training where credible feedback is addressed.

Question | More and more rope manufacturers are creating "fake" MEG4 certificates without the third-party stamp but using their own stamp. Feedback from vessels is that vetting inspectors are accepting any certificate where MEG4 is mentioned. What is done in order to avoid this happening in the industry?

KV | Report this to OCIMF: this is partly why MEG4 was introduced, to tighten up on standards for rope specifications and avoid low-cost solutions that are not designed for the application but can appear to be "sufficient" when looking at just strength specifications. We at Samson see the relevance of "unendorsed" MEG4 certificates for legacy rope products that may be used in mooring, but have not undergone all of the new testing. However, these should never have fake stamps or fake data.

HPB | In our opinion not enough. There should be better control of the content of the MEG4 certificates.

SS | Refer to MEG4, that is clear in terms of recommendations being made. It comes down to how much emphasis organisations place on mooring safety and whether practices being referred to are being challenged or not. Vessels stand a risk of getting rejected by respective vetting organisations or receiving terminals if any signs of fake certification are picked up.