President’s Message


I expect to see all of you at the March 5-6, 2012 conference in beautiful Panama City, Florida, so I can thank each and every one of you for all of the help and encouragement you have provided, not only to me, but the entire Board of Directors, and various committee members throughout the past two years.

After a brief stint as Treasurer, and then as Vice President, assisting Bill Hansen to bring our organization back on an even keel, the job of President was thrust upon me without my going through many of the positions that others before me had traversed while gaining experience in the daily operation of NAMS. However, with a Board of Directors who provided continual support and encouragement to our efforts to update and modernize our organization, and the many members who volunteered for the various committees, all of whom, not only gave of their individual talents, but also provided positive advice during this period, I owe them all a debt of gratitude for the many successes we have accomplished over the past two years.

One of our most important accomplishments was the review and modernization of the association By Laws, which should now stand for many years without change. To make this happen, our new Guidelines, which were approved last year, can be amended as time and circumstances require. Another accomplishment, which will have several benefits, including your conference travel expenses, is the change to one General Membership Conference, to be rotated around our various geographic areas, in the spring of each year. The greatest benefit of this change is the opportunity to greatly increase the fellowship and networking of our widely scattered membership, east, west, and international, at the same time for the professional benefit of us all.

With the rapidly changing advances in technology in all of our disciplines, keeping up with these changes is imperative if we are to continue to be successful, not only in our individual practice, but as an organization. This is why another successful accomplishment was the increase in our required continuing education hours.

We have already begun to realize results in our new image, as new member applications have increased. Over the past two years, we have acquired 41 new active members. To temper this though, we have also had 23 retirements and resignations, as our members age and elect to enjoy a much deserved retirement. This has given us a net increase in members, so far 15. However, this should increase even more by our March Conference pending the acceptance of 24 current applicants, now in various stages.

There is one issue we were not able to complete which means a lot to me, and should to others, and that is the modernization of our testing procedures and content. I have assured our incoming President that I will, with the help of many others, put this as my top priority over the next two years. I am still looking for assistance in this endeavor from members, both active and retired, to assist in this necessary project for the betterment of our future membership.

With that note, I am ecstatic that the leadership of our organization will be turned over to the next generation when Steven Weiss, NAMS-CMS, begins his tenure as President in March. My generation is long on experience, but most of us are nearing retirement, and are somewhat “stuck in our ways”. I am the first to admit, we need the younger, tech savvy, successful members to lead us into the future, as marine surveying continues to adjust with advancing technology in the market place.

So, once again, I say thank you to the great Board of Directors and committee members who have made my tenure so successful and enjoyable, and to my guiding mentor, John Kingston, NAMS-CMS,(dec.) who made not only me, but Tommy Laing, Ken Diers, and numerous others, successful in the profession of marine surveying,

See ya’ll in Panama City, Florida!!
Dick Frenzel, NAMS-CMS

Editor’s Message

The news articles and current events you send in make the NAMSGlobal E-News interesting to readers in all disciplines of marine survey: send new material to [email protected].

At the upcoming meeting in Panama City, we will be asking for nominations for the location of the National Meeting in 2014. The cities being considered for 2013 are San Diego, California and a city in Hawaii. The committee is at work and will report at the March meeting.

Best regards to all.
Greg Weeter, Editor

NAMS Applicants, New Members, Changes in Status, and Committee Assignments

New Applicants
Name Status & Discipline Applying For Region Sponsor(s)
Nicholas Renard NAMS-CMS Cargo W. Gulf Jegg Millard

Crossed The Bar

Sunset and evening star, And one clear call for me!And may there be no moaning of the bar, When I put out to sea,But such a tide as moving seems asleep, Too full for sound and foam,When that which drew from out the boundless deep Turns again home.


Twilight and evening bell, And after that the dark!

And may there be no sadness of farewell, When I embark;

For though from out our bourne of Time and Place The flood may bear me far,

I hope to see my Pilot face to face When I have crossed the bar.


James Wood Jim Wood, a NAMS-CMS member since 2000 passed away January 1, 2012. He had been battling cancer. Jim was President of SAMS 2004 – 2005.  A memorial service will be in Morro Bay, California on February 2, 1012 and another in Idaho in May

Upcoming Educational Events

ABYC 2012 Course Calendar

For the latest information on ABYC’s 2012 educational programs, please click here. Be advised it opens a new window in your browser. Simply close it to return here.

ABYC conducts many educational programs including, but not limited to, Marine Electrical Systems, Corrosion Surveys, Diesel Engines & Support Systems, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration, and ABYC Standards.

If you have questions regarding registration for the ABYC courses please contact Cris Gardner or Sandy Brown at 410.990.4460.

AIMU 2012 Educational Calendar

For the latest on AIMU educational programs, please click here. Be advised it opens a new window in your browser. Simply close it to return here.

Marine Institute of Technology & Graduate Studies / Pacific Maritime Institute Course Calendar

For the latest on MITAGS-PMI educational Programs, please visit the course / calendar on their website. Be advised it opens a new window in your browser. Simply close it to return here. You may also contact Robert Becker at [email protected] or call 866.656.5569.

1 – 3 February 2012, Lake Buena Vista, Florida

The International Marina & Boatyard Conference 10th Anniversary, Disney’s Coronado Springs Resort

13- 17 February 2012, Stuart Florida: Chapman’s Damage Survey Course

This course provides at least 27 CE’s for SAMS and NAMS members. The Instructors are all highly experienced SAMS AMS in the disciplines of Hull Repair, Machinery Repair, and Insurance Interpretations. Any questions concerning the course, facilities, etc. call Bruce at The Chapman office at 772-283-8130 or Jerry Schmitt 772-971-6562.

14 – 15 February 2012, Fort Lauderdale, Florida Knox Marine Annual Yacht Claims Conference

Knox Marine Consultants is proud to announce that their 19th Annual Yacht Claims Conference will be held at Roscioli Yachting Center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. This will be the first time the event has been held in south Florida. Cost is $470 for the two-day event. Discounts are available for groups of four or more. On line registration is now available at

According to Steve Knox, President of Knox Marine Consultants, this annual program was developed for marine surveyors, insurance adjusters, claims handlers and underwriters, attorneys, repairers, and others who deal in the investigation and adjustment of pleasure boat losses. This is the only national conference devoted exclusively to yacht claims, and is a long established networking event for marine surveyors and insurance professionals. Visit Knox Marine’s web site for the latest in conference news ( The session topics change each year. You may register at the web site. For more information, contact Steve Knox at 804.222.5627 or [email protected]. The Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors (SAMS) and the National Association of Marine Surveyors (NAMS) have traditionally awarded 12 CEU’s for the conference.

20 – 22 February 2012, Honolulu, Hawaii: SAMS Pacific Regional Meeting

Ala Moana Hotel & Conference Center. Contact: Darrell Boyes, SAMS-AMS at 360-299-9250 (office) or 360-391-1526 (cell) email: [email protected]

4 – 6 March 2012, Panama City Beach, Florida: NAMSGlobal 50th Anniversary National Marine Conference

Be advised that both NAMSGlobal & the conference hotel have extended the reservations date to 10 February 2012. You have an additional week to register at the reduced rates.

Wyndham Bay Point Resort Panama City Beach, FL. To make hotel reservations online, click here. Or call 850.236.6000.

For a conference reservation form, visit the NAMSGlobal website

10 March 2012 – SAMS Florida Region

SAMS Florida Region will be holding a Meeting & Educational Seminar at the Pelican Yacht Club in Ft. Pierce, Florida. Go to the SAMS website for more details.

2 – 4 October 2012, IBEX, Louisville, Kentucky

19th International Boat Builders Exhibition & Conference. For more information, please visit their website – IBEX 2012.

10 – 13 October 2012, SAMS Annual Meeting & Conference, Baltimore, Maryland

The Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors®, Inc. will hold its 2012 Annual Conference and Educational Training Symposia at the Hyatt Regency Baltimore on the Inner Harbor, 300 Light Street. For further information call the SAMS Office Manager, Rhea Shea, at 800-344-9077 or Email [email protected].

5 – 7 December 2012, The International Boat Show, New Orleans, Louisiana

For complete information, please click the following link: The International Workboat Show.

Articles Of Interest

The Pennsylvania Rule & Recreational Vessel Collisions

Capt. Joseph A. Derie, NAMS-CMS, AMS, SAMS; CMI, Southwest Passage Marine Surveys

The expert witness in a recreational boat collision case should be an expert in the Rules of the Road that apply on the body of water the collision occurred on, as well as any local ordinances and customs that might apply. They should also have an expert’s knowledge and understanding of the Pennsylvania rule. Specifically they should be able to advise an attorney on whether the Pennsylvania rule applies or not in a particular collision, based on the criterion of whether any Rule of the Road that was violated:

  1. Delineates a clear legal duty; or
  2. Requires judgment and assessment of particular circumstances.

If it can be shown that the rule that was violated delineates a clear legal duty, then the Pennsylvania rule applies.

The Pennsylvania rule stems from an 1874 US Supreme Court ruling in The Pennsylvania vs. The Mary Troup. In that case the British bark Mary Troup collided in fog with the British steamship Pennsylvania about 200 miles off Sandy Hook, NJ causing damage to both ships as well as fatalities. The evidence revealed that the Pennsylvania was proceeding at what was determined to be an unsafe speed of seven knots in dense fog; however, the Mary Troup was sounding her fog signal on a bell rather than a foghorn as required by the Rules of the Road. Under the Rules of the Road then in effect, the Mary Tromp was thus sounding the incorrect signal for the circumstances. The question was if this violation of the Rules of the Road was a cause (in legal terms sometimes referred to as a “cause-in-fact”) of the collision.

In deciding the case the Supreme Court imposed the following presumption:

“When, as in this case a ship at the time of a collision is in actual violation of a statutory rule intended to prevent collisions, it is no more than a reasonable presumption that the fault, if not the sole cause, was at least a contributory cause of the disaster. In such a case the burden rests upon the ship of showing not merely that her fault might not have been one of the causes, or that it probably was not, but that it could not have been.”

What this means is that if a ship is in some violation of a navigation statute at the time of a collision, she is presumed to be at fault, and she must prove that that fault could not have been the cause of the collision. This “presumption of causation” has become a keystone of the US maritime law of collisions.

As can be seen from the above criterion, the Pennsylvania rule is not triggered by all violations of the Rules of the Road. As pointed out in the latest edition of Farwell’s Rules of the Nautical Road, (8th edition, Craig T. Allen, US Naval Institute Press, 2005):

“Despite the use of the term “regulations” in the title of the 1972 COLREGS Convention each of the rules are just that ”rules.” A regulation prescribes the required conduct exactly. Rules, by contrast, describe what is generally considered to be the proper course of conduct. Many of the rules in the COLREGS and the Inland Rules (and the STCW Code) eschew rigid definitions, prescriptions or proscriptions in favor of multifactor tests to be applied to the circumstances at hand to determine what action is appropriate. In concluding that an alleged violation of COLREGS Rule 8(c) did not justify application of the Pennsylvania rule, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Pennsylvania rule applies only to violations of statutes or regulations that delineate a clear legal duty and not to those that require judgment and assessment of particular circumstances (emphasis added).”

In the above ruling the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was deciding a case on whether a vessel complied or failed to comply with a part of Rule 8, Action to Avoid Collision. COLREGS and Inland Rule 8 (c) both read:

“If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close-quarters situation.”

A reading of the remaining paragraphs of Rule 8 in both the COLREGS and Inland Rules (they are identical throughout) would appear to indicate that all of Rule 8 fits into the category of rules requiring judgment and assessment. Therefore, in a case involving a violation of Rule 8, whether under the COLREGS or Inland Rules, the Pennsylvania rule would not apply.

Another rule that appears to “require judgment and assessment of particular circumstances” is undoubtedly Rule 6, Safe Speed. COLREGS and Inland Rule 6 both read:

“Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.”

The rule goes on to state: “In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account”(emphasis added), listing six factors applicable to all vessels, and six factors applicable to vessels with operational radar. Together with the words “taken into account” these factors all appear to “require judgment and assessment of particular circumstances.” Note that in the original case from which the ruling sprang, the Pennsylvania was found to be traveling at an unsafe speed but the incorrect signal being sounded by the Mary Tromp was determined a greater violation of the Rules.

Rules of the Road that appear to “delineate a clear legal duty,” as required by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and thus invoke the Pennsylvania rule, are likely to include those found in the Rules of the Road, Part C Lights and Shapes (Rules 20 – 31); and Part D, Sound and Light Signals (Rules 32 – 37). A review of these Rules indicates that for the most part, these rules are specific enough in their requirements of “what and when and by what type of vessel” to satisfy that criteria. Note however, that Rule 35, Sound Signals in Restricted Visibility states: “In or near an area of restricted visibility, whether by day or night the signals prescribed in this Rule shall be used as follows.” How near to an area of restricted visibility a sound signal must be sounded would probably meet the require judgment and assessment of particular circumstances criterion and thus would not trigger the Pennsylvania rule.

It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss every rule and whether it meets the criterion delineating a clear legal duty, versus requiring judgment and assessment of particular circumstances. Indeed it is quite likely that the circumstances of one collision would make a rule delineate a clear legal duty, while in another collision that same rule would require judgment and assessment of those particular circumstances.

Applying the Pennsylvania rule also requires common sense. Farwell’s Rules of the Road points out that the Pennsylvania rule would not apply in a case where “the fact that a vessel’s starboard sidelight was not burning could not be a cause in fact of a collision on the vessel’s port side where the starboard light would not have been visible.”

It should be noted that the Pennsylvania rule applies generally only on federal navigable waters and only in civil cases. It does not apply in criminal cases because of the presumption that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The courts have found that the Pennsylvania rule does not apply in personal injury cases where the personal injury was not incurred as a result of a collision. The Pennsylvania rule applies to recreational vessels on federal navigable waters because they are required to follow the Rules of the Road just like any other vessel.

In those cases where recreational vessels have collided on federal navigable waters, it has been determined that state law may be applied in admiralty cases. The state law, however, can have no direct conflict with established federal maritime law. If this is the case, the expert should also include state law and perhaps local ordinances when evaluating the Pennsylvania rule criteria. Those state laws that fall under the “Operation of a Vessel in a Negligent (or Reckless) Manner” type would obviously fall under the “judgment and assessment” category. Those that fall under the rubric of “Prohibited Activities” or “Restricted Speed Areas” would obviously fall into the “delineates a clear legal duty” category.

Whether the Pennsylvania rule applies on sole state waters depends on rulings by the courts in that state. If no rulings are extant, then the judge in the case in question will make the final determination. In collisions on sole state waters, the expert witness should make their client aware of the Pennsylvania rule so that the attorney, if they deem it appropriate, may file motions with regards to the Pennsylvania rule. In some cases, that motion may be to deny the motion from the opposing side to invoke the Pennsylvania rule. Either motion will include a declaration from that side’s expert witness in support of its motion. An understanding of the Pennsylvania rule will make the expert’s declaration stronger and better support the motion. My experience has been, however, that the judge will deny those motions, preferring that the jury hear the evidence and make its own determination of who was at fault rather than make a ruling.

Finally, when determining what rules may have been violated in any recreational boat collision, and when taking it to the next step to determine whether the Pennsylvania rule applies in those circumstances, the expert witness should always be cognizant of Rule 2, Responsibility, which states:

    1. Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.
    2. In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

Rule 2 (b) and its sanction of a “departure from the rules,” is a prime example of a rule that comes under the “judgment and assessment” category.

New EPA Regulations Have Made Significant Changes to Gasoline Fuel Systems on Boats

By Dave Gerr, from information provided by John Adey and the ABYC Technical Department

After several years of discussion, investigation and review, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has introduced completely new regulations governing fuel installations on boats with gasoline engines or equipment. Most of these new regulations have been implemented starting in 2009 and through 2011. (A few final aspects are scheduled for implementation in 2012.) New regulations and requirements mean added cost and complexity, but they are the law and must be followed fully.

We’ll review here what the new EPA regulations are and explain some of the practical approaches for implementing them. These regulations are now law under the Code of Federal Regulations, specifically 40 CFR Chapter 1060. They will affect the way you design, build, repair or inspect gasoline boats from now on. This article is “MUST READING” for everyone involved in design, building and repair of boats and yachts. Read the complete article and other items of interests to marine surveyors at in the latest issue of the Masthead, The Journal of the Westlawn Institute of Marine Technology

Court – Proof Of Damages In Constructive Total Loss Case

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the burden is on the plaintiffs in a suit in admiralty for constructive total loss to prove reasonable value of the lost property. A US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) vessel allided with plaintiff’s yacht while the yacht was moored at a marina in Portsmouth, Virginia. While liability was conceded, the value of the yacht and the items of property on board and damaged was disputed. The court held that, in many instances, plaintiff failed to show the extent of damage to various items of property and whether the property could be repaired or not. F.C. Wheat Maritime v. United States, No. 10-1906 (4th Cir., December 14, 2011). Courtesy: Bryant’s Maritime Blog – Bryant’s Maritime Consulting [email protected] Website © Dennis L. Bryant

Editor’s note: NAMSGlobal CMS member Jack Hornor was an expert witness in this case.

Fire Probe Prompts Call For Re-think On Plan To Scrap Marine Incident Response Group (MIRG)

The UK government is being urged to reconsider its controversial plans to end the specialist Marine Incident Response Group fire-fighting service in the wake of a report on a serious blaze onboard a ro-pax ferry last year. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch highlights a number of serious shortcomings in the incident response and safety regulations in its report on the fire onboard the Bahamas-flagged Commodore Clipper during a voyage from Jersey to Portsmouth.

The fire, which was caused by a faulty power supply cable for a refrigerated trailer on the main vehicle deck, took almost 20 hours to extinguish and caused extensive disruption to the ship’s systems, restricting its ability to manoeuvre and the crew’s ability to tackle the blaze. Fire-fighting had to be suspended at one stage when cargo debris blocked the vehicle deck drains, causing water from the drenching system to accumulate and reduce the vessel’s stability. Investigators found that unprotected cables and pipework running through the main vehicle deck were damaged by the fire, affecting vital systems, including the loss of power to the forward mooring deck winches and bow thrusters and disrupting control of the rudders.

In response to the findings, MAIB chief inspector Steve Clinch has written to the International Maritime Organisation to call for a review of this and similar ro-ro incidents and for consideration to be given to improved fire protection standards for ro-ro passenger vessels built before July 2010. Investigators said crew members initially believed the fire alarm was a false alert and they silenced and re-set the system 18 times in less than seven minutes. ‘Given the potential for rapid fire development on vehicle, ro-ro and special category decks, it is essential that crew react positively at the first indications of a fire and initiate the proper emergency response,’ the report stresses.

Nautilus said the report also underlined the necessity for ships’ crews to have professional fire-fighting support from ashore. The MAIB noted that it was clear from the accident that ‘a water drenching system in a vehicle deck should not be relied upon to extinguish a fire’ and the report also highlights the problems in tackling the blaze because of the high density of cargo and constraints in the design of the vessel.

It also points to delays in the deployment of a shore-based fire and rescue team to the Commodore Clipper, noting that professional fire-fighters ‘are best placed to understand what information is needed, report the findings and make an assessment on the most effective way to tackle the fire’.

Nautilus senior national secretary Allan Graveson commented:’Careful consideration needs to be given to this report and the government must urgently reconsider the scrapping of the MIRG.’

The MAIB also found a number of problems with the shoreside response to the incident, with berthing of the ferry in Portsmouth being significantly delayed as a result of ‘confusion and technical difficulties’ between various agencies and authorities. There was little evidence of shared planning between all of the organisations involved, and no combined strategy for managing the incident, the report adds. Courtesy FLASHLIGHT, a free monthly e-newsletter circulated to more than 5,000 people involved in marine surveying around the world. It is circulated to anybody who wishes to receive a copy. It is a collation of articles relevant to our profession taken from various publications together with contributions from readers. Letters, opinions and articles relating to our profession are welcomed for the newsletter. [email protected]

Error Could Cause Cards to Be Rejected

Some 26,000 holders of the U. S. Transportation Worker Identification Credential may not be able to use their cards at an electronic reader because of an encoding error, the Transportation Security Administration said. TWIC holders who received cards before April 5 “could potentially” have it rejected by an electronic reader, the TSA said. (The Journal of Commerce, 12/06/2011) Courtesy AIMU Weekly Bulletin.

Shoddy Practices

Flashlight included an addendum earlier relating to the story concerning Filipino seafarers who were cheated out of their wages by their owners. When the Mission to Seamen became involved their money was recovered and paid to them, only to be stolen back from them after the Mission personnel had left the ship. Later they were again paid what they were owed, only to have it stolen from them on their arrival home by the manning agents at Manila airport. This is shameful and such owners should be locked up and the key thrown away.

However, it is not only happening to Filipino seafarers, it is also happening to surveyors. One such case is the actions by a client who agreed a daily fee prior to the surveyor travelling. Upon return to base after 13 days on site due to ship delays, his invoice was reduced unilaterally without consultation, there having been no mention of reducing the fee for standby or travel days whilst on site.

The first rule in business is to keep your word and honour agreements. The second is always to pay your staff what they are owed. How this client can look himself in the mirror each morning amazes me. Needless to say, if he continues with such shoddy practices he will have few staff to work for him and subcontractors will insist on being paid up front. Mike Wall. Courtesy FLASHLIGHT

Dockwise To Sell Yacht Transport Arm

The Dutch shipping firm Dockwise is to sell its specialist yacht transport arm for an undisclosed sum to the New York-based marine logistics company Coby Enterprises. Announcing the move, the heavylift operator said its disposal of Dockwise Yacht Transport (DYT) will allow it to focus on its core activities in the oil and gas sector. DYT transports yachts and leisure craft between sailing regions around the globe. Its main market is the annual transatlantic migration in the second and fourth quarters of the year of yachts from Florida and the Caribbean to the Mediterranean and back.

The company owns three dedicated vessels, Super Servant 3, Super Servant 4 and Yacht Express, above. The DYT team and vessel crews will stay in place, and there will be no change in routes or schedules. Moving toward the future, plans include renewal and upgrade of the yacht carrier fleet and new routes and services. Courtesy FLASHLIGHT

Revision To U. S. NEC (National Electric Code) Regarding Marinas & Harbors

Reader Malcolm of Morgan Designs, Inc. and Morgan Marine Engineering, Sausalito, California wrote to make us aware of a revision to the NEC (National Electric Code) 2011 standards which now requires GFCI breakers for all marinas and harbors under the jurisdiction of the NEC. This caught many industry experts as a surprise, as normally we would have advance warning of a change of this nature.

The exact wording in the revision mentions GFI breakers of 100mA (milliamp) trip threshold on ALL main feeder wires for the marina, UNLESS GFCI breakers are installed on ALL branch or feeder circuits.

What this means is that unless Yacht Clubs and marinas retrofit the main feeder breakers to be 100mA GFI type, they will need to install GFI breakers on every shore power receptacle.

As it was explained to him, this is required for all new wiring work, or any rewiring, and the local Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) could require marinas to retrofit even if no wiring work is planned. It will take time for the local inspectors to get up to speed on this issue, but it would seem prudent to prepare for the inevitable changes coming soon.

Another interesting development brewing in a big wrongful death lawsuit going through the courts right now in Michigan, is the Harbormaster, and some other harbor staff are being sued personally in the lawsuit. This breaks new ground for exposure / liability and will surely be a game-changer for marinas and Yacht Clubs. This is a case involving a boy who was electrocuted in the water in a marina, and faulty wiring is being cited as the cause of death.

Good News For Those Who Survey Containers & Containerized Cargo

US Container Trade Grew – U.S. international containerized trade grew about 3.7 percent in 2011, a sharp slowdown from the double-digit from the year before, according to preliminary figures from PIERS. Containerized imports, measured in 20-foot-equivalent units, grew only 2.2 percent in 2011 over the year before, and most of that growth came early in the year. The 3.7 percent gain in overall U.S. international ocean container volume follows an 11.8 percent year-over-year increase in 2010. But that gain also followed a steep drop in 2009, including a 15.1 decline in import volume. (Journal of Commerce, 12/28/2011) Courtesy AIMU Weekly Bulletin

Costa Concordia – Torrents Of Information

For people with a moderately inquiring mind and a good internet connection, the unwinding of this unfortunate casualty has produced such a public flood of information and expert opinion that it seems at times as if one has the perspective of a claims handler or file holder. Today comes news from Bob Coutie’s Marine Accident Investigation page on LinkedIn that the ship’s Voyage Data Recorder (VDR) had been faulty for several weeks, a not uncommon condition it seems, in accident aftermaths. No less a source than the blog of the New York Review of Books written by Rome-based American academic Ingrid D. Rowland says that 100 Russians were the first off the ship in lifeboats. Read her rather well written piece here:- Courtesy Maritime Advocate Online a weekly digest of news and views on the maritime industries, with particular reference to dispute resolution. To contact the editor Bevis Marks, send an e-mail to: [email protected]

Links Of Interest

Soundings Trade Only magazine has an interesting blog by Bill Sisson about Marine Surveyor George Gallup in the in November 23, 2011 issue: Here’s the link:

Sad but true…Maritime Disaster in New Zealand MV “RENA”, Stranding
Ian Coffer, Retired Life member thought this link may be of interest to the membership.


  1. The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the various authors and / or other content providers published in the National Association of Marine Surveyors, Inc. (NAMS aka NAMSGlobal) eNews do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of this Association or its officers and directors, or the official policies of the Association.

Copyright Statement

  1. The author of each and every article published in this eNews owns his or her own words.
  2. The articles reprinted in this eNews may NOT be redistributed in any other media without the express consent of the original source.

Submissions Policy

An article may be submitted for possible publication in this eNews in the following manner.

  1. Send an email message to [email protected] describing the submission you would like to publish.
  2. Each submission must be confined to one topic and must be less than 300 words in length.
  3. If the editor responds by expressing interest in your submission, save your submission in Rich Text Format (.rtf) and send it as an email attachment to [email protected]. Be sure to include your full name, contact information (address, telephone number, and email address – to be used only by the editors), and a short bio in the body of the email.
  4. Submissions are published in this eNews only on the condition that the author agrees to all terms of the Disclaimer, Copyright Statement, and Submissions Policy as outlined above.
  5. Unsolicited submissions will not be considered for publishing and will not be returned.