REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS

DEPARTMENT OF MERCHANT SHIPPING
LEMESOS

Circular No.19 /2002

July 12, 2002

To all Owners
Managers, Representatives and Masters
of vessels flying the Cyprus flag.

Subject: Instructions to Recognised Organisations to enhance Flag State Control

over Safety Standards of Cyprus Ships

I wish to inform you that the Department of Merchant Shipping, in cooperation with the
Recognised by the Republic of Cyprus Classification Societies, in its effort to enhance the safety
standards of Cyprus ships and to eliminate unnecessary and costly delays due to the detention of the
ships by Port State Control Authorities, has decided to implement a new scheme of preventive
control over Cyprus flag ships based on the experience gained so far.

The new scheme is as described in Appendix 1 and implementation is scheduled to commence on

September 1, 2002. Every effort will be made to avoid repeated detentions and costly delays of
ships.

All Owners, Managers and Masters of Cyprus flag vessels are requested to abide by the new
procedures.

S. S. Serghiou
Director
Department of Merchant Shipping

Cc: Acting Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Works

Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Maritime Offices of the Department of Merchant Shipping abroad
Diplomatic Missions and Honorary Consular Offices of the Republic
Recognised Classification Societies
Cyprus Shipping Council
Association of Cypriot Shipowners (Sea Rovers)
Union of Cypriot Shipowners
Cyprus Bar Association

Kyllinis Street, Mesa Geitonia, CY-4007 Lemesos, P.O.Box 56193, CY-3305 Lemesos, Telephone +357-25-848100
Telefax +357-25-848200, Telex 2004 MERSHIP CY, E-mail dms@cytanet.com.cy, Web page http://www.shipping.gov.cy
 APPENDIX 1

INSTRUCTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MERCHANT SHIPPING

OF CYPRUS TO ITS RECOGNISED ORGANIZATIONS

The present instructions aim at enhancing the control of the flag state
over safety standards of Cyprus ships. These are additional to any
authorization or instruction given in the past to Recognized
Organizations. All terms used are as defined in international
conventions for the implementation of which relevant authorizations
have been given to Recognized Organizations.

1. Change of Flag Surveys

1.1 It is noted that regardless of whether the Company remains the

same as before or a change occurs, no vessel may be registered with
any outstanding recommendation, in accordance with the Department
of Merchant Shipping circular 20/2001. In case a deviation from this
policy is requested, it should be invariably referred to this Department
for consideration and relevant instructions.

1.2 In both cases, at the time of the change of flag, if the due dates
for the surveys for existing certificates are within the ±3 months´
window, then renewal/intermediate/periodical/annual surveys, as the
case may be, shall be carried out immediately. At the same time, an
inspection of basic ILO items as indicated in the check sheet in Annex
1, shall be carried out.

1.3 In the case where the change of flag is not accompanied by a

change of the Company, the surveys shall be limited in scope to the
extent of the applicable annual survey with the addition of basic ILO
items, unless the due dates of the statutory surveys are within the
window mentioned above.

1.4 In cases where the change of flag is accompanied by a change of

the Company, the extent of the surveys in respect of safety equipment
shall be upgraded to that of a renewal survey with the addition of
basic ILO items. The surveys for the statutory certificates other than
the safety equipment, unless they fall within the windows mentioned
in paragraph 1.2 above, shall be carried out to the extent of annual
surveys.

1.5 The statutory survey reports for the change of flag surveys shall
be made available the soonest possible to the Department of Merchant
Shipping either in hard copy or by e-mail, or through access to the
society’s data base.

-1-
2. Survey after detention

2.1 When a Cyprus flag ship is detained and the Recognized

Organization (RO) is called to attend, the surveyor of the RO shall not
limit his inspection to the deficiencies noted by Port State Control.

2.2 If the date of the detention falls within the ±3 months window
for statutory surveys, they shall be conducted before the ship sails. In
the case of renewal surveys, they shall be conducted to the extent
possible, except for safety equipment and radio, which shall be
completed. A time schedule for the completion of surveys at the next
convenient port shall be set and they shall not be delayed until the
end of the window.

2.3 If the date of the detention does not fall within the ±3 months’
window the RO surveyor, after clearing the PSC deficiencies, shall
carry out a general examination of the vessel including the items
listed in Annex 1 and shall ask the questions listed in Annex 2. Then,
using his professional judgement he shall decide whether extra
surveys are required.

2.4 In cases where the surveyor deems that more thorough surveys
are required, he shall proceed as agreed for the change of flag when
accompanied by a change of the Company (see item 1.4). The RO
shall send to the Department of Merchant Shipping copies of the
reports on such cases.

3, Surveys after PSC inspection with deficiencies identified,

which did not warrant detention

3.1 The RO should inform the Department of such cases which are
brought to their attention by PSC authorities. The Department will
decide whether the case warrants further investigation. On the basis
of the results of this investigation the Department in consultation with
the RO will decide on the future policy.

4. Outstanding Recommendations

4.1 In case a ship is burdened with recommendations imposed

either by the Department of Merchant Shipping or PSC, these shall be
communicated to the RO classing the ship and the latter shall ensure
that they have been rectified according to the set schedule. Otherwise
the RO shall contact the Department for a decision on the action to be
taken.

-2-
5. ISM

5.1 On a PSC inspection report as a result of which the ship is

detained, there may be an explicit reference to an ISM major non-
conformity. In such case, an auditor of the auditing organisation
shall board the vessel and perform an additional audit of the vessel’s
Safety Management System. The extent of this additional audit
should be:

(a) equivalent to the mandatory initial audit of the shipboard part

of the SMS, in case the major non-conformity is identified
within twelve months or less from the date of the initial/renewal
audit or less than six months prior to the renewal audit, or

(b) equivalent to the mandatory intermediate audit of the shipboard

part of the SMS, in case the major non-conformity is identified
twelve months or more from the date of the initial/renewal audit
or more than six months prior to the renewal audit.

5.2 If, during the shipboard audit, it becomes apparent that

problems also exist with the SMS of the company, an additional audit
to the extent of the annual audit shall be performed for the Company.

5.3 If the detention order contains no explicit reference to ISM non-

conformities, then the surveyor shall act as in section 2 above.

5.4 If the RO classing the ship and its auditing organisation are
different entities, then the surveyor having received the answers to
questions in Annex 2, should notify the ship’s auditing organization of
the findings. In case the auditing organization, having assessed the
findings, deems that an additional audit is necessary, it shall notify
the Department of Merchant Shipping and proceed as soon as
possible to conduct the additional audit of the SMS of the ship and
inform the Department of Merchant Shipping and the RO classing the
ship of the results.

5.5 If the RO classing the ship is also its auditing organisation, then
in case the RO having assessed the findings of the surveyor based on
the answers to questions in Annex 2, deems an additional shipboard
audit necessary, the RO shall notify immediately the Department of
Merchant Shipping and proceed as soon as possible to conduct the
additional audit of the SMS of the ship and inform the Department of
Merchant Shipping of the results.

5.6 If a vessel is justifiably detained twice within 12 months, then

an additional shipboard audit in the scope of an intermediate audit
shall be performed for the vessel’s SMS and an additional audit of the
Company, in the scope of an annual audit.

-3-
5.7 The Department of Merchant Shipping shall be notified of any
additional shipboard audit or additional audit of the Company.

5.8 The Department of Merchant Shipping shall decide the extent

and scope of additional audits of the shipboard as well as the shore
based SMS of a Company, when a large proportion of that Company’s
fleet is detained by PSC.

6. Postponement of Special Surveys

6.1 Applications for postponement of the special survey will be

considered by the Department of Merchant Shipping only in cases
where special circumstances warrant them.

6.2 No postponement of the special survey shall be given unless all

surveys have commenced and proceeded to the extent possible. The
Department may decide to deviate from this course of action only in
cases of force majeure.

-4-
 No. 17

No. 17 Routine and Ad Hoc Reporting by Surveyors of

(June 2001)
(Rev.1, Evidence of Possible Safety Management
Mar. 2002)
System Failures
INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Procedural Requirement is to ensure that the organisation respon-
sible for the issue of a SMC is notified when a surveyor becomes aware of possible
safety management system failures, particularly with respect to the management of the
maintenance of the ship and its equipment, and to describe the use of the Annual Class
Survey ISM Checklist.

1. SCOPE AND APPLICATION

1.1 This document describes the procedure for reporting by surveyors of evidence of
possible safety management system failures, and the use of the Annual Class Survey
ISM Checklist.

2. DEFINITIONS

2.1 "International Safety Management (ISM)Code" means the International

Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention, as
adopted by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)by Resolution A.741(18), as
may be amended by the Organisation.

2.2 "Document of Compliance" (DOC) means a document issued to a Company that

complies with the requirements of the ISM Code.

2.3 "Safety Management Certificate" (SMC) means a document issued to a ship

which signifies that the company and its shipboard management operate in accordance
with the approved Safety Management System (SMS).

2.4 “Safety Management System” (SMS) means a structured and documented sys-
tem enabling Company personnel to implement effectively the company’s safety and
environmental protection policy.

2.5 "Technical deficiency" means a defect in, or a failure in the operation of, a part
of the ship’s structure or its machinery, equipment or fittings.

3. USE OF THE ANNUAL CLASS SURVEY ISM CHECKLIST

3.1 The checklist, attached as Annex 1, is a list of evidence of possible safety man-
agement system failures recorded on the occasion of the Annual Class Survey. It is not
an audit report. It is to be completed by the surveyor at each Annual Class Survey, and
is to be submitted together with the Annual Class Survey report.

3.2 In cases where the classing society also issued the SMC, the procedure govern-
ing the use of the report, and the treatment of any problems identified, are to be deter-
mined by each society individually.

3.3 Where the SMC was issued by an organisation other than the classing society,
any negative responses on the checklist are to be reported to that organisation.

Note: This Procedural Requirement is to be complied with by IACS Members

and Associates from 1 April 2002.
▲

17-1
IACS Procedural Requirements 2001/Rev.1 2002
 No. 17

4. AD HOC REPORTING
No.17
(cont’d) 4.1 Surveyors may become aware of evidence of possible failures of the Shipboard’s
Safety Management System through the following means:

i) a situation observed during a routine or occasional class or statutory survey;

ii) a situation observed during attendance on board following a port state control
detention arising from purely technical deficiencies;
iii) notification of a port state control detention where possible safety
management system failures are cited in the Port State Control report as
having led, wholly or in part, to the detention;
iv) information received from a third party which indicates that a problem may exist
with respect to the adequacy or implementation of the Safety Management
System.

4.2 The following situations should be reported by the surveyor to the local, region-
al or headquarters ISM staff of his own society:

i) existing or unresolved technical deficiencies that are not being adequately

addressed by the Company and may lead to the limitation, suspension or
withdrawal of a Class or Statutory Certificate;
ii) numerous technical deficiencies which suggest a lack of effective maintenance
of the ship and its equipment;
iii) outstanding port state control deficiencies that resulted in detention;
iv) other conditions not related to Class or Statutory requirements which may
seriously affect the safety of the ship, its personnel or the environment.

4.3 The report shall include the following information:

i) the name of the ship;

ii) the IMO No. of the ship;
iii) the name and address of the company (as stated on the ship’s SMC);
iv) the name of the organisation that issued the Safety Management Certificate
(SMC);
v) the number of the SMC(if applicable);
vi) the place and date of issue of the SMC;
vii) name of the administration on whose behalf the SMC was issued;
viii) details of the possible failures and/or technical deficiencies identified as
specified in 4.2 i) to iv);
ix) the name, position and society of the reporting surveyor and the date of issuance
of the report;
x) the name and position of the representative of the company who acknowledged
by signature the problems and/or deficiencies identified and the date of acknow-
ledgement.

4.4 The surveyor must inform the master or Company representative that this infor-
mation will be communicated to the organisation responsible for the issue of the SMC.

4.5 If the SMC was issued by an organisation other than the classing society, the
information is to be sent to the organisation concerned. A list of IACS contact points
is given in Annex 2.

4.6 The issuing society will review the information provided, decide on what action
(e.g additional audit), if any, should be taken, and report to the Administration if nec-
essary, and to the classing society.
▲

17-2
IACS Procedural Requirements 2001/Rev.1 2002
 No. 17

Annex 1
No.17
(cont’d)
Annual Class Survey ISM Checklist
Ship's Name Flag IMO Number

Survey Record No. Date of Survey Survey Place

(A. Technical deficiencies)

A-1. Class/Statutory related technical deficiencies are found ?

- No (No action to be taken)
- Yes (go to A-2)
A-2. Such technical deficiencies, if not corrected, might lead to the suspension of Class and/or withdrawal of
statutory certificates ?
- No (go to A-3 )
- Yes (To be reported)
A-3. Such technical deficiencies were reported to the Company ?
- No (To be reported)
- Yes (go to A-4)
A-4. Evidence for dealing with such technical deficiencies by the Company exists ?
- No (To be reported)
- Yes (go to A-5)
A-5. Possible immediate rectification for such deficiencies exists ?
- No (To be reported)
- Yes (No action to be taken)

(B. Serious threat)

Other conditions which may seriously affect the safety of the ship, personnel or the environment are found ?
- No (No action to be taken)
- Yes (To be reported)

(C. Documentary deficiencies)

Class/Statutory related documentary deficiencies are found ?
- No (No action to be taken)
- Yes (To be reported)
(D. Operational failures)
Class/Statutory related operational failures found ?
- No (No action to be taken)
- Yes (To be reported)
(E. Class/Statutory requirements)
Other Class/Statutory requirements are not observed ?
- No (No action to be taken)
- Yes (To be reported)
Conclusion
- To be reported to Head Office together with relevant Survey Record
- No action to be taken
Surveyor's Comments

Date: Signature(Ship's Master/Company representative)

Classification Society Office

Name of Surveyor: Date:
▲

17-3
IACS Procedural Requirements 2001/Rev.1 2002
No. 17

No.17 Annex 2
(cont’d)
List of Contact Points
Classificaton
Office/Department Person in charge Fax Number e-mail address
Society
Singapore / H. Juneja +65 275 0258 Hjuneja@eagle.org
Dubai / S. Blair +971 4 3555358 Sblair@eagle.org
ABS Houston / M. Kelleher +281 877 5932 Mkelleher@eagle.org

Head Office, Claude Maillot + 33 1 42 91 52 93 claude.maillot@bureauveri

Paris tas.com
BV DNS/DCE

Headquarters Mr H Shu + 86 10 651 36678 hshu@ccs.org.cn

Classification
CCS Division

DNV Mr John Olav Lie + 47 67 57 9911 John.Olav.Lie

Hovik, MTP 863 @dnv.com
DNV

Head Office Hamburg O.Quas +49 40 36149 200 Qua@germanlloyd.org

Marine Management
GL Systems
Certification Services

Head Office Mr Moon Kyu Park +82 42 862 6039 mkpark@krs.co.kr

Quality Assurance
KR Centre

Rotterdam Tony Field + 31 10 20 18 438 tony.field@lr.org

Hong Kong Andy Morris + 852 2845 2616 andy.morris@lr.org
LR Seattle Tim Protheroe + 1 206 378 0600 tim.protheroe@lr.org
Piraeus Apo Poulovassilis + 30 1 452 8955 apo.poulovassilis@lr.org

Safety Management Mr M Homma + 81 43 294 7206 smd@classnk.or.jp

System Department
1-8-5, Ohno-dai
Class NK Midori-ku
Chiba
267-0056

Head Office Mr A Zolezi +39 010 5351369 alberto.zolezi@rina.org

RINA

A.S. Mikhailov +7 812 314 06 79 025@rs-head.spb.ru

E.E. Hernburg
RS

CSM and QS Dept Zivoje +385 21 358 878 fleet.services@crs.tel.hr

Krstulovic-Opara
CRS

Head Office I N Bose +91-22-570 3611 irsho@bom3.vsnl.net.in

Principal Surveyor
IRS S B Paranjpe +91-22-570 3611 irsho@bom3.vsnl.net.in
Senior Surveyor

This list can be updated by the IACS Permanent Secretary, not in accordance with a
procedure to amend Procedural Requirements.
▲
▲

17-4
IACS Procedural Requirements 2001/Rev.1 2002
 No. 17

No. 17 Routine and Ad Hoc Reporting by Surveyors of

(June 2001)
(Rev.1, Evidence of Possible Safety Management
Mar. 2002)
System Failures
INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Procedural Requirement is to ensure that the organisation respon-
sible for the issue of a SMC is notified when a surveyor becomes aware of possible
safety management system failures, particularly with respect to the management of the
maintenance of the ship and its equipment, and to describe the use of the Annual Class
Survey ISM Checklist.

1. SCOPE AND APPLICATION

1.1 This document describes the procedure for reporting by surveyors of evidence of
possible safety management system failures, and the use of the Annual Class Survey
ISM Checklist.

2. DEFINITIONS

2.1 "International Safety Management (ISM)Code" means the International

Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention, as
adopted by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)by Resolution A.741(18), as
may be amended by the Organisation.

2.2 "Document of Compliance" (DOC) means a document issued to a Company that

complies with the requirements of the ISM Code.

2.3 "Safety Management Certificate" (SMC) means a document issued to a ship

which signifies that the company and its shipboard management operate in accordance
with the approved Safety Management System (SMS).

2.4 “Safety Management System” (SMS) means a structured and documented sys-
tem enabling Company personnel to implement effectively the company’s safety and
environmental protection policy.

2.5 "Technical deficiency" means a defect in, or a failure in the operation of, a part
of the ship’s structure or its machinery, equipment or fittings.

3. USE OF THE ANNUAL CLASS SURVEY ISM CHECKLIST

3.1 The checklist, attached as Annex 1, is a list of evidence of possible safety man-
agement system failures recorded on the occasion of the Annual Class Survey. It is not
an audit report. It is to be completed by the surveyor at each Annual Class Survey, and
is to be submitted together with the Annual Class Survey report.

3.2 In cases where the classing society also issued the SMC, the procedure govern-
ing the use of the report, and the treatment of any problems identified, are to be deter-
mined by each society individually.

3.3 Where the SMC was issued by an organisation other than the classing society,
any negative responses on the checklist are to be reported to that organisation.

Note: This Procedural Requirement is to be complied with by IACS Members

and Associates from 1 April 2002.
▲

17-1
IACS Procedural Requirements 2001/Rev.1 2002
 No. 17

4. AD HOC REPORTING
No.17
(cont’d) 4.1 Surveyors may become aware of evidence of possible failures of the Shipboard’s
Safety Management System through the following means:

i) a situation observed during a routine or occasional class or statutory survey;

ii) a situation observed during attendance on board following a port state control
detention arising from purely technical deficiencies;
iii) notification of a port state control detention where possible safety
management system failures are cited in the Port State Control report as
having led, wholly or in part, to the detention;
iv) information received from a third party which indicates that a problem may exist
with respect to the adequacy or implementation of the Safety Management
System.

4.2 The following situations should be reported by the surveyor to the local, region-
al or headquarters ISM staff of his own society:

i) existing or unresolved technical deficiencies that are not being adequately

addressed by the Company and may lead to the limitation, suspension or
withdrawal of a Class or Statutory Certificate;
ii) numerous technical deficiencies which suggest a lack of effective maintenance
of the ship and its equipment;
iii) outstanding port state control deficiencies that resulted in detention;
iv) other conditions not related to Class or Statutory requirements which may
seriously affect the safety of the ship, its personnel or the environment.

4.3 The report shall include the following information:

i) the name of the ship;

ii) the IMO No. of the ship;
iii) the name and address of the company (as stated on the ship’s SMC);
iv) the name of the organisation that issued the Safety Management Certificate
(SMC);
v) the number of the SMC(if applicable);
vi) the place and date of issue of the SMC;
vii) name of the administration on whose behalf the SMC was issued;
viii) details of the possible failures and/or technical deficiencies identified as
specified in 4.2 i) to iv);
ix) the name, position and society of the reporting surveyor and the date of issuance
of the report;
x) the name and position of the representative of the company who acknowledged
by signature the problems and/or deficiencies identified and the date of acknow-
ledgement.

4.4 The surveyor must inform the master or Company representative that this infor-
mation will be communicated to the organisation responsible for the issue of the SMC.

4.5 If the SMC was issued by an organisation other than the classing society, the
information is to be sent to the organisation concerned. A list of IACS contact points
is given in Annex 2.

4.6 The issuing society will review the information provided, decide on what action
(e.g additional audit), if any, should be taken, and report to the Administration if nec-
essary, and to the classing society.
▲

17-2
IACS Procedural Requirements 2001/Rev.1 2002
 No. 17

Annex 1
No.17
(cont’d)
Annual Class Survey ISM Checklist
Ship's Name Flag IMO Number

Survey Record No. Date of Survey Survey Place

(A. Technical deficiencies)

A-1. Class/Statutory related technical deficiencies are found ?

- No (No action to be taken)
- Yes (go to A-2)
A-2. Such technical deficiencies, if not corrected, might lead to the suspension of Class and/or withdrawal of
statutory certificates ?
- No (go to A-3 )
- Yes (To be reported)
A-3. Such technical deficiencies were reported to the Company ?
- No (To be reported)
- Yes (go to A-4)
A-4. Evidence for dealing with such technical deficiencies by the Company exists ?
- No (To be reported)
- Yes (go to A-5)
A-5. Possible immediate rectification for such deficiencies exists ?
- No (To be reported)
- Yes (No action to be taken)

(B. Serious threat)

Other conditions which may seriously affect the safety of the ship, personnel or the environment are found ?
- No (No action to be taken)
- Yes (To be reported)

(C. Documentary deficiencies)

Class/Statutory related documentary deficiencies are found ?
- No (No action to be taken)
- Yes (To be reported)
(D. Operational failures)
Class/Statutory related operational failures found ?
- No (No action to be taken)
- Yes (To be reported)
(E. Class/Statutory requirements)
Other Class/Statutory requirements are not observed ?
- No (No action to be taken)
- Yes (To be reported)
Conclusion
- To be reported to Head Office together with relevant Survey Record
- No action to be taken
Surveyor's Comments

Date: Signature(Ship's Master/Company representative)

Classification Society Office

Name of Surveyor: Date:
▲

17-3
IACS Procedural Requirements 2001/Rev.1 2002
No. 17

No.17 Annex 2
(cont’d)
List of Contact Points
Classificaton
Office/Department Person in charge Fax Number e-mail address
Society
Singapore / H. Juneja +65 275 0258 Hjuneja@eagle.org
Dubai / S. Blair +971 4 3555358 Sblair@eagle.org
ABS Houston / M. Kelleher +281 877 5932 Mkelleher@eagle.org

Head Office, Claude Maillot + 33 1 42 91 52 93 claude.maillot@bureauveri

Paris tas.com
BV DNS/DCE

Headquarters Mr H Shu + 86 10 651 36678 hshu@ccs.org.cn

Classification
CCS Division

DNV Mr John Olav Lie + 47 67 57 9911 John.Olav.Lie

Hovik, MTP 863 @dnv.com
DNV

Head Office Hamburg O.Quas +49 40 36149 200 Qua@germanlloyd.org

Marine Management
GL Systems
Certification Services

Head Office Mr Moon Kyu Park +82 42 862 6039 mkpark@krs.co.kr

Quality Assurance
KR Centre

Rotterdam Tony Field + 31 10 20 18 438 tony.field@lr.org

Hong Kong Andy Morris + 852 2845 2616 andy.morris@lr.org
LR Seattle Tim Protheroe + 1 206 378 0600 tim.protheroe@lr.org
Piraeus Apo Poulovassilis + 30 1 452 8955 apo.poulovassilis@lr.org

Safety Management Mr M Homma + 81 43 294 7206 smd@classnk.or.jp

System Department
1-8-5, Ohno-dai
Class NK Midori-ku
Chiba
267-0056

Head Office Mr A Zolezi +39 010 5351369 alberto.zolezi@rina.org

RINA

A.S. Mikhailov +7 812 314 06 79 025@rs-head.spb.ru

E.E. Hernburg
RS

CSM and QS Dept Zivoje +385 21 358 878 fleet.services@crs.tel.hr

Krstulovic-Opara
CRS

Head Office I N Bose +91-22-570 3611 irsho@bom3.vsnl.net.in

Principal Surveyor
IRS S B Paranjpe +91-22-570 3611 irsho@bom3.vsnl.net.in
Senior Surveyor

This list can be updated by the IACS Permanent Secretary, not in accordance with a
procedure to amend Procedural Requirements.
▲
▲

17-4
IACS Procedural Requirements 2001/Rev.1 2002
CHECK SHEET FOR SURVEY OF ILO ITEMS

This checklist to be completed during surveys associated with Port State Detentions of
Cyprus Registered Vessels

ILO Reference YES NO N/A

1. The accommodations and spaces were generally examined in so far as practical and accessible including:
a. Are all of the accommodation spaces being used for what they were intended for? ILO 92, 133 and 147

b. Are all of the accommodation rooms and spaces being kept clean and tidy? ILO 92, 133 and 147

c. Is adequate lighting is available throughout the accommodation? ILO 92, 133 and 147

d. If the accommodation heating system working (for vessel’s operating in cold climates only)? ILO 147

e. Are the officers and crew sanitary facilities clean? ILO 92, 133 and 147

f. Are crew bathrooms, water closets and sinks operating properly? ILO 92, 133 and 147

g. Is water pressure available to the bathrooms and water closets? ILO 92, 133 and 147

h. Are cockroaches and other inspects properly dealt with? ILO 68 and 147

i. Is hot and cold water available? ILO 92, 133 and 147

2. The Engine room and other machinery spaces were generally examined in so far as practical and accessible including:
a. Are all engine room bilges clean and free of oil?

b. Is the steering gear compartment clean and free of oil and garbage? ILO 134 and 147

c. Is the engine room clean (no accumulation of oily rags or garbage)? ILO 134 and 147

d. Are acetylene and oxygen bottles stored outside of the accommodation, ILO 134 and 147
engine room and other machinery spaces?

e. Is paint and thinners stored outside of machinery spaces in designated storage rooms? ILO 134 and 147

3. The food and catering areas were generally examined in so far as practical and accessible including:
a. Galley found clean and suitable for preparing food? ILO 68 and 147

b. Are crew provisions in satisfactory condition with no spoilage or unsanitary conditions ILO 68 and 147
in stowage or galley?

c. Refrigerated provisions storerooms found clean, of adequate size for the provisions, ILO 68 and 147
and the refrigeration machinery considered capable of maintaining the provisions at adequate temperatures?

d. Are drinking water taps in working condition? ILO 68 and 147

4. Is the machinery fitted with protective devices (guards) as considered necessary? ILO 134 and 147

5. Is the windlass and mooring winches in good order? ILO 134 and 147

6. Is the accommodation ladder in good working order and considered safe for use? ILO 134 and 147

Note: If any of the above was answered NO, contact your ________________ for further guidance.

Remarks:

Surveyor

CYPRUS ILO
Check Sheet - Revision 0 Page 1 of 1