Of interest to some of our members is the recently published “Review of the New Zealand Pleasure Boat Safety Strategy” including recomendations concerning registration, qualification and education, alcohol limits.
To view the document click http://www.mnz.govt.nz/publications/Recreational/Boating_Safety_Strategy_2007_full.pdf
Oceans of opportunity: The Master’s View by Richard Meade – Lloyds List Wednesday 16 April 2008
Richard caught up with the master of CMA CGM Puget as it unloads in the port of New Jersey “I just don’t seem to ever leave my office. The paperwork is a reality of the job these days but there is just too much of it.” “I am happy, if I wasn’t I couldn’t do this. I find this a good company to work for and this is a good ship.” “We are busy all the ti
Counting $30,000 in unused notes is surprisingly tricky, particularly when you have only slept four hours and it is 6°C in your cabin.
New $100 bills are the problem. They are sticky and unyielding, but on the plus side they are worth more than used currency when paying sweeteners in Middle East ports, especially when they are accompanied by a carton or three of Marlboro cigarettes.
Majski Anic and the 21 crew of CMA CGM Puget arrived at the Port of New Jersey at around midnight last night. It was 0230 hrs by the time Capt Anic had seen the ship’s agent and signed off the most urgent of the documentation, so he decided to catch a few hours sleep before the next parade of visitors started to demand his attention at dawn this morning.
The sticky $30,000 came with a company agent who needs him to sign off on some papers. Queuing up behind him is a class inspector and the engineer who has come with a plan to fix the broken boiler and heat up the freezing cold ship. Outside, the bunkering operation is nearly completed and there is a consignment of food and medical supplies that needs his stamp. But before he has had a chance to finish counting the cash, two humourless officers from Customs and Border jump the queue and an immediate crew inspection is called.
“It’s normally like this, although it’s not usually so bloody cold,” Capt Anic says as he signs yet another piece of paper and hands it to the waiting bosun.
Despite appearances, the pace of a port call in New Jersey is pretty relaxed. There are two CMA CGM vessels alongside at the moment and the priority has shifted away from the CMA CGM Puget, giving Capt Anic nearly 30 hours to prepare for the next leg of the voyage.
“We are busy all the time but this is easy, we have time to spare. When we do China we are looking at staying in the port between six to ten hours absolute maximum, then move on to the next. I’m like a zombie by the end of those trips.”
On a typical China route, CMA CGM Puget can expect at least five port calls in a week amid very heavy traffic often consisting of smaller, and sometimes erratic local vessels. It is a job that requires the full attention of an alert crew, not zombies.
There are, of course, rules governing working hours, but the reality of working on a containership is often very different.
When CMA CGM Puget leaves the Red Sea to pass through the Suez Canal later on this voyage, Capt Anic will face a familiar dilemma. Follow the rules or arrive on schedule.
“We drop anchor at say 2300 hrs, the pilot arrives between 0300 hrs-0500 hrs and I have to be on the bridge during the whole passage until probably 1600 hrs. After that I have two hours navigation to the port of Damietta. What else can I do, turn round and say sorry gentlemen I am very tired? It doesn’t work like that. I will finish at about midnight. That’s around 20 hours on the bridge without sleep. That is the reality”.
If the pace of life at sea is speeding up, then the crews are simultaneously getting smaller.
Just a decade ago, Capt Anic worked aboard smaller ships manned by 35 crew. Now he is in charge of 282 m of vessel with just 22 crew members, and two of them are cadets.
Given a choice he would take at least 24 for a vessel of this size and preferably include an additional ‘sparky’ for the ubiquitous and never ending torrent of paperwork that seems to flow into his office. “I just don’t seem to ever leave this room. The paperwork is a reality of the job these days but there is just too much of it.”
Given a choice to go back and start again, many of the senior crew aboard the CMA CGM Puget tell me they would seriously reconsider a life at sea. But sitting in his office, tired and cold, Capt Anic disagrees. “I’m satisfied. I could change jobs if I wanted, it’s not too late for me, I’m 44. But I enjoy it.”
“For the family, of course, it is not so nice, particularly when you have small kids.”
Capt Anic’s four-year-old daughter and 10-year-old son do not see him for four-month stretches and each time he returns it takes a while to get back into family life. With break periods in between contracts generally only running to about three months for senior officers it can often be very hard to balance family life with the job.
When he met his wife, Capt Anic had already been at sea for several years and as a naval architect herself she was well aware of the pitfalls of being married to seafarer. But understanding it is not the same as liking it. When his son was born Capt Anic was at sea and while he managed to get home for his daughter’s birth, he admits that the job can often be equally tough on those left behind. “It’s by far the worst aspect of our job,” he admits.
Despite the obvious pressures he continues to take pleasure in the work and does not see himself changing anything for several years to come.
“I am happy, if I wasn’t I couldn’t do this. I find this a good company to work for and this is a good ship,” he says.
The fact that CMA CGM Puget is a relativelynew ship also helps, in that everything works, with the current notable exception of the heating system. Working for a management team that understands how a ship needs to be run, however, is vital, says Capt Anic.
“We have a good relationship with the company, particularly with [the head office in] Marseille. It feels like we are a family.”
Despite the rapid growth at CMA CGM over the past few years, efforts have been made to keep in touch with all employees and address staff issues from the bottom up.
It is a policy that appears to have gone down well. Several of the crew and officers aboard CMA CGM Puget have been to France for one of the company’s regular staff meetings with senior management. The fact that they are encouraged to talk frankly about their jobs and what they need has won a great deal of appreciation from the crew.
“It seems that any problem can be sorted out. We will generally be able to find a solution,” says Capt Anic.
When one of the Filipino crew recently had a death in the family it was arranged for him to fly home for the funeral. “You do not get this with every company, they are very human company.”
This attitude also translates into the ship’s galley where food is taken very seriously. “Food is very important to the good running of a ship.”
Inside the galley’s fridges Capt Anic is proud to say that he can find different types of cheese andsalami that he would not even be able to afford at home. The produce they buy is varied and good quality and he is encouraged to make sure that the crew are satisfied with their menus. To him this is indicative of a company who knows how to look after its staff.
“I was working for a German company before where they were very strict on what we could buy. We were told not to buy more expensive options. We always had to look for cheaper food. I like mustard, but there were people looking at our shopping lists saying that this was too expensive. They were even moaning about the water for the table.”
But as a man with $30,000 for expenses sitting in his safe, stocking up on knock-off pots of cheap mustard is presumably the least of his worries.
The paperwork is stacking up once again in his office. The next port of call requires 24-hour advance notice of all cargo manifests and he has not yet finished dealing with the onslaught of forms from this port call. When he does finally arrive everything will need checking all over again and there will be the usual parade of around 30 visitors, officials and inspectors demanding his immediate attention, a signature or perhaps some of the $30,000.
Hopefully, before that happens, the boiler will get fixed and he can get some sleep.
Leisure craft on Canada’s waterways will be safer this year, if the Honorable Minister for Transport has his way. No less than five million Canadian boaters who do not currently have a licence – a ‘proof of competency’ – must get one before they take to the water, or risk a $250 fine.
Looking ahead to the 2008 boating season, the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, has urged Canadian pleasure boaters to make sure they have their proof of competency before heading out on the water.
‘Our government wants Canada’s several million recreational boaters to enjoy increased safety on the water,’ said Minister Cannon. ‘We believe that requiring proof of competency will help reduce the number of incidents and deaths that occur on our waterways every year.’
New Transport Canada regulations require all operators of motorized pleasure craft in Canada to have their proof of competency by September 15, 2009.
Already, any boater born after April 1, 1983, or anyone who operates a motorized pleasure craft less than four metres long, including personal watercraft, must have proof of competency on board, or risk fines up to $250.
The Canadian Government is keen to cut down the country’s boating incidents and fatalities. At the moment, Canada has 6,000 boating incidents a year, and 150 fatalities.
For those Wellington members who attended the meeting last week when the Manager of ONV gave a very interesting talk on oil exploration in New Zealand. For more information on the FPSO Raroa and the platform now unloading in Admiralty Bay go to these links.
The owners were having problems with Maritime New Zealand about the length of ANATOKI.
The problem was “resolved” by building a “new” bow inside the original bow, and the “new” bow was used for the tonnage length calculations, thereby falling below 50 metres.
To make sure that the “old” bow was not contributing any buoyancy, etc, they have had to drill holes in the “old” bow – as per this photograph taken last week..
by Michael Grey-Lloyds List- Monday 28 January 2008
THE great Heathrow air crash (or hard landing, if I might use the technical term) invited some interesting comparisons between ships and aircraft.
Undoubtedly, the pilots of the Boeing 777 did everything they ought, as their two engines refused to provide them with the required power in their final descent.
Forced to keep the nose down to maintain flight speed, the pilot managed to ‘glide’ the aircraft over houses and over a busy road with feet to spare, just getting the nose up at the last second to prevent the Boeing burying itself in the runway approach.
Fortunately there was no double deck bus on the road, because the chances are the top deck passengers wouldn’t have made it.
The miracle was that there was no fire on impact and that with a few relatively minor injuries, the crew clearly had effected a textbook evacuation.
The following day the airline was confident enough to parade their heroic flight crew and purser before the waiting press, subsequently collecting column feet of admiring reportage.
Throughout the coverage it was fascinating to see the negative fact of a catastrophe just averted by the skin of one’s teeth, transformed into a positive outcome for British Airways, airmanship, and heroic behaviour. Even the passengers seemed to go along with the mood of the moment; those interviewed being remarkably stoical and matter of fact about the event, which had clearly happened rather too fast for terror to have become established.
There was no whingeing about panic, or mutterings about class action to gain compensation for the serious psychological damage done by the near-death experience. Nobody even complaining about having to wait for their luggage. Not on camera, anyway.
It was a happy outcome, not the usual frightfulness of an air crash, but even so I could not help comparing the events with what tends to go on in the aftermath of a marine casualty.
We didn’t hear about the first action of the authorities being to breathalyse the capt and first officer. We were not made aware that the first people aboard the wrecked aircraft were heavily-built chaps from the local constabulary, with their pencils and notebooks, anxious to take statements from the witnesses, deny them legal representation and arrest the senior officers, lest they flee the country.
The first officer, I noted, was resident in France, but did not appear to be detained under UK jurisdiction.
The casualty investigators, rather than subjecting the crew to umpteen hours of non-stop questioning, we were told by one newspaper, had interviewed them, and then taken them for a curry, which would have settled the nerves, if not the stomach.
Within 24 hours of this horrific ‘near miss’, the Air Accident Investigation Branch was issuing a preliminary statement about the sequence of events that appeared to have caused the hard landing. It did not appear that lawyers representing the engine or aircraft manufacturer, or whoever had repaired or maintained the 777 over the last few weeks, were making strenuous attempts to prevent such a statement being made public. It all seemed, by comparison with the maritime world that I inhabit, astonishingly civilised and sensible. ‘Professional’ is a word that comes to mind.
Moreover, as one expects in the world of aviation, everyone was stepping up rapidly to the plate, not seeking to lie low or avoid their responsibilities.
A team from Boeing was quickly on the scene, with the engine manufacturers rushing their experts into Heathrow. Doubtless, those whose components had been installed, if they were even remotely relevant to the inquiry, would be present and correct.
“We just cannot not know what caused an air accident”, I recall the then president of the Royal Aeronautical Society telling me severely, when I was sitting next to him at a dinner some years ago. It is no more than we should expect.
But it was the complete absence of people burbling on about fault or blame which seemed to me to be so significant in the aftermath of this near disaster. There was no lobby group whimpering about the fact that they had warned the authorities about the likelihood of such an accident for years.
There were no muscular statements from safety authorities pledging “full and searching enquiries” and that the guilty persons will be ‘held to account’. It was like the shipping industry before the lunatics had taken over the asylum.
If these things are a matter of perception, the public perception is that the aviation industry does things right, and enjoys a generally positive image.
There is just no need for the nonsense on stilts and general hysterics that tend to follow a maritime accident, and in particular one that involves oil pollution.
The Erika judgement, if you like, was a case in point. More than eight years after this elderly tanker had been lost with serious pollution and we have a trial of some (not all) of the parties involved. Worth recalling that the master of the Erika, Capt Mathur, who had managed to get his crew safely off the ship in notably hostile weather, was immediately hustled into a French prison, denied legal representation and treated like a major criminal and enemy of the state.
It took the urgent representations of the Mission to Seafarers chaplain in Dunkirk to spring this poor survivor from the Bastille in which he was held.
Poor Captain Mangouras of the Prestige, a man who was no youngster, and who was attempting to perform miracles to save his wounded ship, fared, as we know, no better at the hands of the Spanish authorities, which are arguably culpable for their refusal of a place of refuge and ridiculous orders to the ship as the emergency developed.
Both accidents set new standards in largely pointless litigation and blaming; standards which were already at Olympic levels after the Exxon Valdez fiasco.
There is also a level of transparency within the aviation industry that is just not the case in shipping. How often, scanning the casualty columns in this newspaper do I enunciate the words to the effect that I would pay money to discover what caused some particular choice maritime conundrum. “How on earth did they manage to do that with that ship?”
It is not just my macabre sense of curiosity — public interest demands that these matters are made public, so we can learn from the casualty and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
But with a small list of notable exceptions, led by the UK’s excellent Marine Accident Investigation Branch, the Australians, New Zealanders, Danes, Bahamians, the US Transportation Safety Bureau and a few others, the majority of flag states do not make these matters generally public.
There is a convention requirement to ensure that accident investigations are published and lodged with the International Maritime Organization, but a large number of administrations, bless ‘em, don’t bother to do this, or indeed have any adequate investigation mechanism available. It might get better as a result of casualty investigation capability being linked with flag state auditing. It badly needs to.
And yet the lessons from casualties require such to be published promptly. Less than a day after the Heathrow crash and authoritative statements are being made.
Perhaps the urgency involved in an aviation casualty is scarcely comparable with the more ponderous world of shipping. One can imagine the operators of some 900 Boeing 777s undertaking many hours of creative overtime to check over their auto-throttles, practically before the dust had settled.
You can argue that aviation and shipping are very different modes of transport, ships naturally floating and aircraft unnaturally suspended in the air and moving at speeds which are positively frightening. But you cannot get away from the basic difference that following an accident, aviation focusses on cause, while shipping drills down on blame and liability. And all of this spills over into a public perception about flying, despite its apparent danger, which is just so much more positive than that of shipping.
Perhaps the shipping industry, with its convoluted management structures involving the use of third parties is its own worst enemy. I don’t recall many post casualty disputes about complex “chains of responsibility” in the world of aviation, despite its dependence on leasing and sub-contracted maintenance. I guess there is no doubt about whose responsibility it was to do whatever needed to be done.
You certainly don’t get the sort of fiascos you have in the shipping industry, where the manager blames the terminal meanness of the owner, who blames the occasional scrutiny of the classification society, the cargo owner and charterer blame everyone else, while the flag state and the polluted coastal state rage at each other. And the lawyers settle down to litigation that will last for the entire careers of young practitioners. And the new enthusiasm for criminalisation brings an exciting new dimension to the whole process as regional regulators seize the opportunity to flex their muscles and invoke their punitive sanctions on all involved, chiefly the master, who is being conveniently held in some dungeon, ready for the tumbrils to roll.
One gets the impression that the world of aviation is one which is practical, pragmatic and utterly focused on accident prevention. By contrast, the shipping world retains the worst of its medieval past and has embraced little of the 21st century.
It is hoist by environmental activism, which has captivated the politicians and hamstrung the regulators. And in this melange of political correctness and simple inefficiency, shipping sails on, an industry where innocent people are persecuted and prosecuted because they are unfortunate enough to be in command of a ship. They are not trotted out as heroes, when they have done something heroic, but instead will be detained in darkened cellars being questioned for hours by interrogators, so blame can be apportioned.
Best to go down with the ship, and leave heroics to the world of aviation, where they appreciate heroism.
Lloyds List – Wednesday 23 January 2008
THE news that the master of the very large crude carrier Hebei Spirit, several crew, and indeed the owners of the ship, have been charged by the South Korean authorities, is profoundly depressing, demonstrating once again that the perils of the sea have become but a minor part of the risks run by those involved in marine transport.
It also illustrates the dilemma faced by maritime employers, who have to consider how best to support staff so disgracefully treated by the authorities, despite demonstrating great professionalism and seamanship in difficult circumstances.
The charges against Capt Chawla and his team are quite ridiculous and betray profound ignorance of ship operations. They also suggest that political pressure to placate those who have suffered from the pollution has been a major factor.
The facts speak for themselves. A VLCC was anchored in the authorised position. A crane barge, owned by South Korea’s biggest company, attempted a coastal passage in adverse weather. Its manoeuvres to avoid the anchored ship were inept and ineffective. The VLCC crew employed every reasonable and practical effort to avoid the collision and are now unfairly charged by the authorities.
Capt Chawla and his officers now join a depressingly long list of fine professionals who have been treated appallingly by authorities after a maritime accident.
Without exception, all the states whose treatment of those involved leaves so much to be desired, are members of the International Maritime Organization. Most will have attended the most recent meeting of the IMO’s Legal Committee, where recommendations for the fair treatment of seafarers involved in maritime accidents featured. All such administrations, and not just that of South Korea, need to examine themselves and consider the consequences of their disgraceful behaviour on those who make their living upon the sea.
You are invited to comment on the draft Maritime Rule Part 32, Ships and Maritime Operations
Personnel – Qualifications (re-issue).
Purpose of the draft Part 3 32 Rule 2 Maritime Rule Part 32 (re-issue) is a complete re-draft of the current Maritime Rule Part 32 (incorporating recent amendments). While most of the changes are intended to provide greater clarity to the rule, the draft also proposes:
• A schedule containing the new eye sight standards for candidates proposed in Maritime
Rule Part 34 – Medical Standards. This is intended for the ease of reference of candidates
consulting Maritime Rule Part 32
• To reduce the qualifying sea service in non-fishing vessels of 100 gross tons or more for the ‘AB Certificate’ from nine to three months. This is intended to better recognise the skills and
experience of fishing industry personnel and to ease their transition should they wish to transfer to the merchant sector. As it is expected that this qualification will soon be included in the
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers
(STCW), the qualification also anticipates the requirements under the Convention. It is also
proposed to offer AB candidates some remission of required sea service if they complete an
acceptable structured training programme
• To increase the remission of sea service for completing a structured training programme for
Inshore Launchmaster, NZ Offshore Watchkeeper, NZ Offshore Master,
• A remission of sea service of 12 months is introduced for the AB Certificate. The purpose of this is to encourage a structured training while maintaining safety standards.
• To remove the current Ro-Ro Passenger Ships endorsement rule and instead include it in Maritime Rule Part 31A -Crewing and Watchkeeping, Unlimited, Offshore, and Coastal (Non-fishing) Vessels. This change recognises that these requirements are better suited to the crewing rule.
• To provide a clear and specific minimum level of qualifications required to be able to operate as a Harbourmaster in New Zealand. This is intended to redress the current situation where no
minimum standards are prescribed in the maritime rules framework. This rule would apply to new appointments only and not to Harbourmasters employed in positions at the time the rule comes into force. Comments are invited as to whether other qualifications should be accepted as
alternative pre-requisites to be employed as a Harbourmaster in New Zealand, e.g. naval
qualifications or specific seafaring qualifications from other jurisdictions such as Australia or the
United Kingdom.
• A review of all maritime qualifications is scheduled to occur in the 2008-2009 financial year. This review may result in changes to the pre-requisite qualifications. Any resulting proposed
amendments will be consulted on as part of the review process.
• Rule 32.57 permits the Director to recognise equivalent certificates as meeting the requirements for prerequisite certificates required for the issue of a certificate of competency. This will provide flexibility to recognise training that may have been completed in another jurisdiction to be recognised as fulfilling the requirements for the issue of a certificate of competency in New Zealand, thereby promoting entry into the industry.
• To introduce a definition of “Yacht”. This is intended to indicate the range and types of vessels
that holders of “Yacht” qualifications may operate. It was regarded as necessary, in view of the
complexity and size of the vessels that holders of these qualifications would operate, that some
sea time should be served on vessels of not less than 24 metres in length rather than the present
minimum length of 12 metres.
• To remove from the STCW95 deck certificates, the requirements for applicants who are 65 years of age or over, to be medically fit to the satisfaction of the Director. However, under the Part 32 (re-issue) the Director retains the right to ask applicants to undergo a medical examination if he or she believes on reasonable grounds, by reason of some medical condition, that an applicant may not be able to carry out the duties required by the holder of the certificate being sought.
• To align national certificates of competency with STCW validation requir requirements ements ements. Certificates issued under the Part 32 (re re-issue) will require revalida revalidation every five years. Existing certificates, issued under the current Part 32, will be deemed to have been issued under the re re-issue when the re re-issue comes into force.
Making submissions
The deadline for making comments on the draft rule is 11 April 2008 (i.e. your comments must be received by that date).
You may make comments by:• E-mail to [email protected]
• Ordinary post to PO Box 27006, Wellington
• Fax to (04) 494 1263
• Delivery to Level 10, Optimation House, 1 Grey Street, Wellington.
Submissions are public information
Please indicate clearly if your comments are commercially sensitive, or if, for some reason, you
consider they should not be disclosed. In addition, if you are an individual (i.e. your comments are made personally and not on behalf of a company or an organisation) please indicate if you consider for some reason that your identity should not be disclosed.
We will acknowledge all submissions that we receive and once the rule is finalised you will receive a summary of the full consultation.
Gisborne Herald Friday, 28 December 2007 by John Jones
THE multimillion-dollar Jody F Millennium case has been settled and Gisborne’s ratepayers are off the hook. Gisborne District Council chief executive Lindsay McKenzie advised councillors of the settlement but it was not made public until after the final papers were filed in the Supreme Court just before Christmas.
Mr McKenzie said the settlement was a confidential one and he did not know any details. But he had been told the council did not have to make any financial contribution.
One major effect of the settlement is that the council’s wholly-owned trading company, Gisborne Holdings, no longer has to operate as a port company. The company had kept this role after the port was sold to Eastland Infrastructure because Tauwhareparae farms, which it operates, had been part of the port company and the asset was available, if needed, to raise funds to meet a successful law suit.
The council has been told that there will be changes in the new year to finally dissolve the port company. Although it was widely believed that insurance would cover any possible claim, the announcement is still a relief and a Christmas present for the district. The settlement removes a risk that has hung over Gisborne District Council for four years.
In February 2003, a year after the Jody ran aground at Waikanae Beach, the ship’s owners Twin Bright Shipping Company and its parent company, filed a claim naming Port Gisborne as the first defendant and the council as the second. The claim was made in several currencies and was estimated to have a value at that time of (NZ) $23 million.
The port company was sold to Eastland Energy Trust and now is one of the Eastland Infrastructure group of companies, but the endowment farms at Tauwhareparae were retained by the council, which formed Tauwhareparae Farms Ltd. That company became the defendant.
The case has seen a number of developments. The council was discontinued from the action in 2005 but that decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal. The council had appealed to the Supreme Court. Presiding judge Justice Williams filed a minute setting a date for the trial in February next year, with four weeks set down.
The defendants were the farm company, the council pending its appeal, Svitzer Harbour Ltd (the parent company of Adsteam tug company which was the port’s pilot at the time of the stranding), and Eastland Moorings. The existence of the claim and fears that the council might be financially exposed has hung over the district since the claim was filed. Mayor Meng Foon said it was great news that the case had been settled and there were no liabilities for either the District Council or Tauwhareparae Farms Ltd.
The insurers for these two parties had reached a settlement with the plaintiffs. The council had only to pay a few thousand dollars in legal fees. “I am pleased it is behind us. It is past history now and we can get on with life,” said Mr Foon
Article from Fairplay 13 December 2007
The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) will introduce “near-coastal” certificates for deck and engineering officers next year, in a bid to remedy the maritime labour shortage. AMSA’s manager of ship operations and qualifications, Mark Eldon-Roberts, told the organisation’s National Shipping Conference that AMSA was updating its policy in order to recognise the maritime qualifications of navy and customs personnel, as well as those working on trailer hopper suction dredgers. The certification changes, which could appear in the first half of 2008, will bring AMSA’s national qualification regime in line with the systems of individual Australian states, allowing officers a “vertical career line”. Around 1,200 qualified personnel leave the Royal Australian Navy each year and AMSA hopes to draw some into the STCW system. The purpose… is to allow a tinny to tanker progression,” Eldon-Roberts commented. The NSCV Part D near-coastal certificates will be limited to Australia’s EEZ. Eldon-Roberts declared the changes were “actually quite revolutionary” and would also form part of a general review of Marine Orders Part 3, which will incorporate the amended STCW Code and altered gross tonnage limitations. A draft of the Marine Orders should be ready by Easter next year.
