I am distressed by the number of ships being built with crew accommodation forward. The new Maersk ships are the last straw.
The design of these is in flat contradiction of the Maritime Labour Convention 2006, of which Title 3, Standard 3.1.6 (c) states: 'In ships other than passenger ships, as defined in Regulation 2 (e) and (f) of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended (the SOLAS Convention), sleeping rooms shall be situated above the load line amidships or aft, except in exceptional cases; where the size, type or intended service of the ship renders any other location impracticable, sleeping rooms may be located in the fore part of the ship, but in no case forward of the collision bulkhead.'
Why, on any of these new ships, is it an 'exceptional case' or 'impracticable' for the accommodation to be midships or aft, when thousands of similar ships have been so built over the last few decades? Just what are the flag administrations and their class society advisors thinking?
Colin Wright
A version of this letter was previously published in Ships Monthly magazine
More letters
Is my maritime pension performing as well as it should?
Nautilus answers a member's query about the now-closed MNOPF pension scheme.
Could Nautilus have done more for members' injured knees?
The Union has done great work over the years, and I was a liaison officer for a long time, but I feel that one big failure has not getting seafarers compensation for damage to their knees.
Are you being managed well? Please share your experiences in my study
I'm writing to ask fellow Nautilus members to give a few minutes of their time to help with my research.