The maritime industry has invested heavily in competence over many years. Bridge teams are trained, assessed, and audited. All ships staff are certified, drilled, and scrutinised. Procedures are written, checked, and enforced, and yet, every day, vessels allow individuals onboard who operate outside of the ISM system.

Shore-based Contractors.

We have a blind spot, and we’ve normalised it over many years; this is not a training gap it’s a leadership gap.

The uncomfortable reality is:

Many contractor have little or no understanding of basic shipboard safety or the ISM Code.

Many are unfamiliar with:

• Emergency alarms and responses

• Permit-to-work systems

• Enclosed space risks

• Shipboard command structure

• The operational pressures of a live vessel

And yet, they are allowed to work sometimes unsupervised in critical areas of the vessel. If a crew member demonstrated the same lack of awareness, they would not be allowed to work on the vessel. So why do we accept it from shore contractors?

This is not a Training Gap It’s a Leadership Gap.

The issue is often framed as a lack of contractor training, but that’s only part of the problem, the real issue is this:

 We, as an industry, have allowed it to happen.

• Companies assume contractors are “competent enough”

• Contractors assume their shore-based safety training is sufficient

• Ships are given neither the time nor the authority to properly integrate them as we do with all crew members.

Responsibility is diffused, accountability disappears and the risk remains onboard.

Contractors step onboard vessels worldwide technicians, service engineers, riding squads often with impressive technical credentials, but here is the uncomfortable reality:

The “Short Job” excuse is no longer acceptable

“We don’t have time.” “It’s just a quick repair.” “They’ve been here before.”

These phrases are heard on ships every day they are also the same phrases that precede incidents. Shipping does not allow shortcuts in navigation; It does not allow uncertified officers to take the watch. yet when it comes to contractors, standards are quietly lowered. Not because the risks are lower but because the system tolerates it.

From the safety perspective this is a real risk

During internal audits and inspections one issue repeatedly emerges, contractors operating onboard with minimal integration into the ship’s safety system.

 They are given safety induction training and allowed to be part of the daily safety meetings to ensure the jobs and maintenance are fully discussed with safety barriers well established to ensure all personnel aware of the hazards involved and safety instructions are followed at all times.

 However, in reality when shore-based technicians start work they are in many cases in a world of their own do what they want go were they want totally disregarding the safety induction and daily safety work planning meeting which they just attended, including disregarding wearing the most basic of PPE requirments.

 This leads to:

Poor communication with responsible team leaders and responsible personnel, In a high-risk environment, this is not a minor inefficiency it is a major vulnerability.

 Contractors are not visitors they are part of the risk system

This is where the mindset must change, as long as contractors are treated as “external specialists,” they will remain outside the safety culture of the vessel, they are not. The moment they step onboard, they become part of the ship’s operational risk profile, and they must be treated accordingly.

 What needs to change now

If the industry is serious about safety, then this gap must be closed with the same rigour applied to crew competence.

• Safety Induction to be followed at all times if these instructions are not followed No work - No access to operational areas-dismissal from vessel.

• Shore Based Contractors to be monitored at all times.  

• Ships staff empowered to challenge and stop unsafe contractor practices this is not about compliance; this is about control.

Thought for the day

We have spent years strengthening bridge resource management, human factors, and leadership training at sea. But we continue to accept a parallel workforce onboard that operates outside those controls at times. That contradiction is a risk the industry can no longer ignore. A vessel does not distinguish between crew and contractor when something goes wrong. It only exposes the weakest link within a system.

 We are still largely relying on assumption.

Not because procedures don’t exist they do, not because people don’t care they do. But because what is written in the SMS and what actually happens onboard are often very different things.

What “Integration” should look like

If contractors were truly integrated into the ship’s safety system, you would consistently see:

• Proper, structured inductions not rushed briefings on the gangway

• Clear understanding of alarms, escape routes, and emergency roles

• Full compliance with permit-to-work systems

• Active communication with on board leadership teams

• Supervision aligned with the risk of the task for very department

In short, they would behave like temporary crew members, not external visitors.

What Actually Happens

In reality, integration is often superficial:

·         Inductions are compressed due to time pressure

·         Safety information is given but not verified

• Contractors rely on prior experience (“I’ve done this before”)

• Crew assume understanding rather than confirming it

• Work proceeds before full alignment is achieved

This is not integration, its assumption dressed up as compliance.

Why This Matters More Than We Admit

From an operational standpoint, this gap creates:

• Hidden risk because it’s not always visible until something goes wrong

• Cognitive overload crew compensate by monitoring contractors instead of focusing on their own duties.

• Breakdowns in emergency response when seconds matter, uncertainty kills time

And Critically:

It undermines all the progress we’ve made in bridge resource management and human factors. Because you cannot have an effective safety system if part of the team is operating outside it.

 The Real Test

A simple way to assess this onboard, if an alarm sounds right now, would every contractor onboard know exactly what to do without guidance? If the answer is anything other than a confident “yes,” then integration hasn’t been achieved.

 Bottom Line

We don’t have a procedure problem; we have an execution and accountability problem. Until contractors are treated as fully embedded in the ship’s safety system from the moment they step onboard the vessel the industry will continue to rely on assumption. and assumption, in our environment, is where incidents begin to happen and accountability begins to fog.