M/V Sabina A


Case Study – Sabina A

Ship's Particulars


Type of Vessel: General Cargo

IMO No.: 8121379

Keel Date: 1983

Call Sign: J8MG

Gross Tonnage: 3222

Flag: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines


Classification Society/RO: Nil


SABINA A was targeted on account of the ship classifying as high risk on the MOU’s assessment procedure.  The vessel was subsequently boarded by a Port State Control Officer (PSCO) whom proceeded with a more detailed inspection that resulted in detainable deficiencies listed as follows:

  1. Fire main leaking due to lack of maintenance.

Other deficiencies raised but not raised as detainable were:

  1. Draft markings not clearly marked and missing Loadline Certificate for second loadline markings.
  2. Cargo Safety Equipment Certificate was overdue with annual safety inspection.
  3. Line Throwing cartridge and Parachute Flares service dates had expired.
  4. The second Navigation Radar was unserviceable.
  5. The competent authority not ensuring that the management of occupational safety is practiced onboard as it pertains to the replacement of damaged mooring lines. 
  6. Main propulsion Engine sea water cooling pipes leaking due to lack of maintenance. 
  7. Ventilation pipes casings were corroded with excessive wastage of material. 
  8. Cargo hatch cover sealing arrangement was compromised.
  9. Rollers for fairleads were seized. 

Inspection Information

The PSCO boarded the SABINA A, which was alongside in the Kingston Harbour with cargo operation in progress.  Prior to boarding, it was evident to the PSCO that the draft markings displayed on the stern and forward hull plating were not clearly highlighted.  Also, defective mooring lines were being used to secure the vessel alongside.  In addition, it was noticed there were two loadline markings displayed on the hull plating. 

Pic. 1. Damaged mooring line.

 Pic.2. Faded draught markings. 


Pic.3. Duplicated loadline markings.

The PSCO proceeded to the accommodation and commenced the inspection by reviewing the documentation onboard.  Upon reviewing the ships Statutory Certificates it was noted that the Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate (Form E) Annual Survey was not endorsed by a representative from the Flag Administration within the required period.  In addition, the loadline certification issued onboard was for only one of the two visible loadline markings.  On informing the Master of the observations by the PSCO prior to boarding, the inspection profile was changed for an initial to a more detailed inspection. 

The PSCO proceeded to the Bridge deck and found one of the two required navigation radars to be unserviceable.  No exemption from the Administration was onboard at the time of the inspection.  Likewise, no exemption letter was on hand to verify the Administration was aware of the expired parachute flares and line throwing apparatus cartridges.

  Pic.4. Defective secondary radar.

 Pic.5. Expired rocket flares.


Pic.6. Expired cartridges for linethrower device.

The PSCO resumed the inspection and proceeded to the boat deck and then the main deck.  Further inspection of the mooring lines confirmed a number of the mooring lines used to berth the ship at the time of the inspection were damaged.  The PSCO was unable to rotate a number of the Roller fairleads, which were seized.  At the forecastle, the hatch cover was missing wing nuts from the locking arrangement, preventing its ability to guarantee its water tight capabilities.  This situation could be disastrous in the event green water was shipped considering the vessel has a low freeboard.

Pic.7. Damaged mooring line.   

Pic.8. Seized Roller fairleads.

Pic.9. Missing “wing nuts” from forecastle hatch cover.

Whilst continuing with the inspection on the main deck, various ventilation pipe casings were seen with extensive corrosion, with some casings showing considerable material wastage. 

 Pic.10. Corroded ventilation pipe casings.

 Pic.11. HFO Ventilation casings with extensive corrosion to the fire gauze.

Heavy fuel Oil (HFO) ventilation casings also were extensively corroded with some casings missing the fire gauze, posing a potential fire hazard. 

Pic.12. HFO Ventilation casings without the fire gauze.

The cargo hold hatch covers were in place at the time of the inspection.  The PSCO noted sections of the cargo hatch covers interface with the hatch coaming had evidence of foam, which was applied to prevent the ingress of water into the hold.  This temporary arrangement was authorized by the Management onboard due to the damaged hatch cover sealing arrangement.  The crew was subsequently instructed to open the roller type hatch cover, whereupon it was confirmed by the PSCO that the rubber gasket arrangement was damaged at some sections of the hatch cover. 

Pic.13. Poor sealing arrangement for cargo hold hatch covers.


Pic.14. Damaged cargo hatch cover rubber sealing arrangement.

The fire main had various sections with corrosion.  Closer inspection revealed temporary measures that was in place to prevent a leak and possibly maintain the pressure in the lines connected to the hydrants.  The temporary repairs appeared to have been in place for a considerable period due to corroded stainless steel clamps. 

Pic.15. Temporary repairs to the fire main piping.

The attending inspector resumed the inspection in the machinery space where a number of the piping arrangements had indication of rust markings, which were on account of wastage of piping material contributing to leaks.  This condition was more evident in the sea water cooling pipes and may be the effect of galvanic corrosion.  Complete failure of the pipe in this system would result in the inability to cool the main propulsion engine sufficiently. 


 Pic.16. Estensive wastage of steel pipes in the machinery room.

Due to the condition of the vessel and its equipment, a major non-conformity on maintenance of the ship and equipment was raised.

The inspection ended with PSCO officially informing the master that the ship would be detained, further explaining the inspection report, supplements and recommending how to proceed

Detention and Follow-up

The PSCO explained to the master that the Flag State would be required to confirm rectification of the deficiencies.


A follow-up inspection was conducted by the PSCO whom verified that the temporary repairs effected to the fire main was removed and permanent repairs done.   A fire drill was subsequently conducted and the fire main pressure verified to be adequate.   The draft and loadline markings were painted and clearly distinguished from the hull plating.  The previous loadline marking was painted over.  Replacement flares and line throwing cartridges were delivered onboard, and short term and Exemption Certificates were issued by the Administration for the Cargo Ship Safety equipment Certificate and the defective navigation radar. 

Replacement mooring lines were delivered onboard during the detention period.

A fitter joined the ship during the period of the detention and is expected to complete the necessary repairs to the damaged piping arrangement in the machinery room.  The ship subsequently was allowed to sail with the deficiency with the instruction that they would be addressed within fourteen (14) days as of the follow up inspection.



Contact: Secretary General, Caribbean MOU
12 Ocean Boulevard, 2nd Floor
Tel: 876-922-1077
For more information on the Caribbean MoU on Port State Control please consult our Internet Website on the following address: www.caribbeanmou.org



No part of the information contained in this website may be stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or by any means without prior authorisation in writing from by the owners of the data.