Consultants guide to Ship Anti Piracy work in GoA
- Thread starter Merchant Maritime Warfare Centre
- Start date
Nick, Interesting points made, I can think of a number of people in the industry who wont thank you though as they are making big bucks at CTC!! I got my PFSO and SSO through the back door (Maybe not the best way of putting it) but was running 10 man (6 Green, 4 Blue) teams out in the NAG on the MOD RoRo. Ships master wrote me a hoofing letter and Force Protection at PJHQ payed for the 4 day's! BUT as you say unless you have a seaman's log book it's not worth much, I always found the COF was normally SSO and that's all you need.
Hi All
Currently working in the "OPs Officer" role for a company. Just thought this might be of Interest. This is the Legal Requirement for the standard of Security Teams on board Panamanian Regersterd Ships. The majority in the area seem to be registerd there. Although the Law is Fuzzy at best the trend seems to say that whilst in International Water you are bound by the law of Where The Ship is Registered. Thought it was note worthy that although you need to produce proof of training and standards if required, at no time in the Document is mentioned STCW 95, SSO Course or any other Licence or Registration. The only thing that helps in my experiance is a Seamans card because it can ease the way through the Foreign Port Authorities.
Quote3.1 Taking into account that confrontation undertaken in defense of the ship by armed
security or military teams could escalate a dangerous situation and could produce
unforeseen consequences, the following minimum standards and guidelines are
intended to help ship owners and operators to receive these type of authorizations:
3.1.1 Email requesting authorization to carry armed personnel on board sent to
threats@amp.gob.pa
3.1.2 Security personnel with adequate training, experience and capabilities to
assess and mitigate risks of pirate attacks.
3.1.3 Each member has completed Advance Tactical Combat Casualty car, Basic
Lifesaver, Force Protection, firefighting and Self defense training course.
3.1.4 Each member of Security team shall be adequately insured for marine
liabilities onboard and no criminal history.
3.1.5 Security Team shall have a security management plan.
3.1.6 Minimum Ship Security Plan guidelines for Armed Security Team.
3.1.7 Each member has been informed that confrontation undertaken in defense of
the ship could escalate to a dangerous situation and could produce
unforeseen consequences to include loss of life.
Hope this Helps
security or military teams could escalate a dangerous situation and could produce
unforeseen consequences, the following minimum standards and guidelines are
intended to help ship owners and operators to receive these type of authorizations:
3.1.1 Email requesting authorization to carry armed personnel on board sent to
threats@amp.gob.pa
3.1.2 Security personnel with adequate training, experience and capabilities to
assess and mitigate risks of pirate attacks.
3.1.3 Each member has completed Advance Tactical Combat Casualty car, Basic
Lifesaver, Force Protection, firefighting and Self defense training course.
3.1.4 Each member of Security team shall be adequately insured for marine
liabilities onboard and no criminal history.
3.1.5 Security Team shall have a security management plan.
3.1.6 Minimum Ship Security Plan guidelines for Armed Security Team.
3.1.7 Each member has been informed that confrontation undertaken in defense of
the ship could escalate to a dangerous situation and could produce
unforeseen consequences to include loss of life.
Hope this Helps
Merchant Maritime Warfare Centre
Security Directors
Hi Keith,
The point of our intel service is 2 way comms - intel in and then straight back out within a few minutes but to a much wider audience - 90% of the vessels i have been on including this last week - only do downloads once every 4 hours and do not have broadband - the IMB / UKMTO is good at taking the data and poor at getting broadcasts straight back out to those that need it the most.
Our service is NOT intended to be an emergency responding service and if you get attacked then you should contact UKMTO for the assistance and file the report after the event with IMB...
Welshpig (Dai)
Never done anything by the back door and if I remember correctly you did a bonafide SSO (based on your sea time with the RM) and PFSO course.
Define big bucks and CTC (commercial business operation with commercial room hire and catering costs) v cost of course and other overheads + piss... up in the mess everynight?
Big Bro is watching
John
Never done anything by the back door and if I remember correctly you did a bonafide SSO (based on your sea time with the RM) and PFSO course.
Define big bucks and CTC (commercial business operation with commercial room hire and catering costs) v cost of course and other overheads + piss... up in the mess everynight?
Big Bro is watching
John
Last edited:
I cannot believe that they make no mention of having an understanding the ISPS code. Love or Hate it the ISPS code is the only security code of practice that most merchant mariners can relate to and of course it is the one they use operationally.
Surely it is paramount for an external security team to have knowledge of how the vessels security operates and how they can dovetail into it.
ISPS Ship Security Plans (SSP) might not be the bees knees when it comes to workable procedures but they are in place and the ships crew should be able to relate to them....................!
Be it unarmed or armed, teams need to be able to understand how the vessel currently operates it's security.
Irrespective of what we think of the security standards on vessels we have a duty of care to understand the merchant mariners way of thinking.
THEY ARE THE CLIENT! We have to work with them!
John
Sanddancer
Longterm Registered User
Observations
Guys
Just some observations on a number of posts (& on another similar thread):
I dont want to get too into this as its probably old ground but it does seem that some who have posted against formal quals such as SSO etc are now hinting or blatantly commmenting in favour of them? As anyone can see from my posts on another thread on this 'what you really need' my opinion is clear.
On the intell comments, I have personally found that the IMB website + other open sources are sufficient for a broad understanding of attack locations & MOs for research prior to deployment. After all I just need to know where they're operating & how they're operating.
Once aboard I always, as I'm sure most guys if not all do, send reports of the vessel's movements on a bi-daily basis to the UKMTO & reports on any attacks/sus sightings to the UKMTO & IMB. Also, I make sure that any vessel I board has registered its movements with the MSCHoA website prior to entering the higher risk areas & the MSCHoA then send good, timely, up to date email reports to the vessel on new attacks or sus sightings & new higher risk areas that may have been established as a result of any new attacks or sus sightings in new areas. Job done in my opinion.
Any other intell that can be sourced from commercial intell providers that does not just repeat the MSCHoA intell (which is gratis) is good, maybe for risk assessments & business proposals etc, but again in my opinon, not essential for ops.
Cheers all
Guys
Just some observations on a number of posts (& on another similar thread):
I dont want to get too into this as its probably old ground but it does seem that some who have posted against formal quals such as SSO etc are now hinting or blatantly commmenting in favour of them?
As anyone can see from my posts on another thread on this 'what you really need' my opinion is clear.On the intell comments, I have personally found that the IMB website + other open sources are sufficient for a broad understanding of attack locations & MOs for research prior to deployment. After all I just need to know where they're operating & how they're operating.
Once aboard I always, as I'm sure most guys if not all do, send reports of the vessel's movements on a bi-daily basis to the UKMTO & reports on any attacks/sus sightings to the UKMTO & IMB. Also, I make sure that any vessel I board has registered its movements with the MSCHoA website prior to entering the higher risk areas & the MSCHoA then send good, timely, up to date email reports to the vessel on new attacks or sus sightings & new higher risk areas that may have been established as a result of any new attacks or sus sightings in new areas. Job done in my opinion.
Any other intell that can be sourced from commercial intell providers that does not just repeat the MSCHoA intell (which is gratis) is good, maybe for risk assessments & business proposals etc, but again in my opinon, not essential for ops.
Cheers all
Sanddancer
Longterm Registered User
Exactamundo mate 
Merchant Maritime Warfare Centre
Security Directors
Hi Sanddancer,
Trouble is your a trained professional and on 1 ship and in the whole region that your operating there will be less than 10% of the ships with a sec pro like you onboard - so the other 90% are Captains / bridge teams with none of your experience and SOP's.
Therefore no exchange of intel and lack of knowledge.
If every ship in region had a VPD onboard there would be no need for the intel as it would be amazing - alas - in the real world 90% of the ships do not have anyone other than a nervous crew on....
Trouble is your a trained professional and on 1 ship and in the whole region that your operating there will be less than 10% of the ships with a sec pro like you onboard - so the other 90% are Captains / bridge teams with none of your experience and SOP's.
Therefore no exchange of intel and lack of knowledge.
If every ship in region had a VPD onboard there would be no need for the intel as it would be amazing - alas - in the real world 90% of the ships do not have anyone other than a nervous crew on....
Sanddancer
Longterm Registered User
MMWC, I get your drift mate (no pun intended). This is how I look at it. Not suggesting its contrary to you or others, just my thoughts.
If a client is offered the cheapest option (intell + generic risk assessment etc etc & even some crew training if they're flush) then most will take it. And as we all know the cheapest is rarely the best. In this case nervous crews would remain nervous in my opinion.
When clients take all the above + a professional consultant and/or team aboard that is obviously the more expensive option for them with a mutitude of added benefits (eg the pro TL, crew reassurance etc etc). Without droning on about the benefits of this the proof of the pudding is in the fact that only one vessel (that I know of) with security aboard has ever been taken.
On the other hand, I can only guess at the number of vessels that have been taken who have gone down the cheaper route i.e. in house trg & asset hardening, in house or bought generic risk assessment & the 'bridge card system' etc, but I would guess it is more than one.
I'm obviously looking from this from the operator perspective (as I am one) & not the purely commercial one (not suggesting you are). I suppose its the age old - ops versus commercial dilema (ish).
If a client wants to go down the cheaper route I personally would do everything to convince them of the error of their ways & how they are not taking all reasonable measures to keep the crew & ship safe (putting non-professionals but crew potentially in harms way operating defensive equip is a whole other thread I think) but I'd probably fall short of calling them cheapskates & slammin the phone down though
.
In a nutshell, the professional team etc route is the best as is as I'm sure you'll agree. It isnt cheap but "BUY CHEAP BUY TWICE" addage comes in here. On the commercial thing; it may not be cheap & be the best commercially for the client but it will be if it prevents them paying millions in ransom. It is also professional & commercially sensible for the security company & keeps guys in work. Win, win, win as far as I see it
Dont want to sound preachy, just putting my thoughs down
Cheers all
If a client is offered the cheapest option (intell + generic risk assessment etc etc & even some crew training if they're flush) then most will take it. And as we all know the cheapest is rarely the best. In this case nervous crews would remain nervous in my opinion.
When clients take all the above + a professional consultant and/or team aboard that is obviously the more expensive option for them with a mutitude of added benefits (eg the pro TL, crew reassurance etc etc). Without droning on about the benefits of this the proof of the pudding is in the fact that only one vessel (that I know of) with security aboard has ever been taken.
On the other hand, I can only guess at the number of vessels that have been taken who have gone down the cheaper route i.e. in house trg & asset hardening, in house or bought generic risk assessment & the 'bridge card system' etc, but I would guess it is more than one.
I'm obviously looking from this from the operator perspective (as I am one) & not the purely commercial one (not suggesting you are). I suppose its the age old - ops versus commercial dilema (ish).
If a client wants to go down the cheaper route I personally would do everything to convince them of the error of their ways & how they are not taking all reasonable measures to keep the crew & ship safe (putting non-professionals but crew potentially in harms way operating defensive equip is a whole other thread I think) but I'd probably fall short of calling them cheapskates & slammin the phone down though
.In a nutshell, the professional team etc route is the best as is as I'm sure you'll agree. It isnt cheap but "BUY CHEAP BUY TWICE" addage comes in here. On the commercial thing; it may not be cheap & be the best commercially for the client but it will be if it prevents them paying millions in ransom. It is also professional & commercially sensible for the security company & keeps guys in work. Win, win, win as far as I see it
Dont want to sound preachy, just putting my thoughs down
Cheers all
Welsh Pig (Die)
Never done anything by the back door and if I remember correctly you did a bonafide SSO (based on your sea time with the RM) and PFSO course.
Define big bucks and CTC (commercial business operation with commercial room hire and catering costs) v cost of course and other overheads + piss... up in the mess every night?
Big Bro is watching
John
John, Not quite what I meant and apologies to any one if it looked like I was trying to miss lead, especially your self, Back door as in I was able to claim the money back from the RN so that I didn't use my resettlement money due to the letter from the MV Anvil Head's Ships Master. Always have and will recommend your IMSA course
But SSO is a big earner, yes that's envy!! but is it required? PFSO yes.
Personal apology on the way too.
Yours aye,
Dai
Last edited:
Open source intel is available and offers the experienced transiteers an update on trends - however we don't even have any statistics on Easterly vs Westerly transits, of each vessel previously hijacked in the GoA.
If we had:
Which direction they are going
What time
What speed
These three basic points, assessed over time, would offer a significant trend analysis and highlight the direction with the highest vulnerability.
I personally don’t think the UKMTO want this information in the general domain, and possibly not even the security companies. As I’m sure people would appreciate, if the analysis indicated a success rate of 90 - 100% in one direction, transits in the opposite direction would more or less cease.
In March there was a trend of oil and chemical tankers primarily being attacked, is this due to the success rate of the hijacks and ransom demands, or a reluctance to construct defences which require hot works? Or simply the bulk carrier trade has reduced considerably, or simply the fact the oil market is extremely strong that their trading is either constant or increasing?
Any thoughts?
Kindest Regards
Jon
If we had:
Which direction they are going
What time
What speed
These three basic points, assessed over time, would offer a significant trend analysis and highlight the direction with the highest vulnerability.
I personally don’t think the UKMTO want this information in the general domain, and possibly not even the security companies. As I’m sure people would appreciate, if the analysis indicated a success rate of 90 - 100% in one direction, transits in the opposite direction would more or less cease.
In March there was a trend of oil and chemical tankers primarily being attacked, is this due to the success rate of the hijacks and ransom demands, or a reluctance to construct defences which require hot works? Or simply the bulk carrier trade has reduced considerably, or simply the fact the oil market is extremely strong that their trading is either constant or increasing?
Any thoughts?
Kindest Regards
Jon
Dave-Clarke
New Member
Hi Bud, Good post, exactly what ive been saying to guys for the last 12 months, I certainly would endorse a code of practice.
rossmanning
New Member
hi i left the army a few months ago and i am realy interested in this short of work how would i go about getting work or what course i would need to do.
Tanks for reading any info would be greatly apreciated
Tanks for reading any info would be greatly apreciated
Thank you Nick,
I found your post very informative.
I am currently actively seeking employment in MarSec and have been looking to get myself on an SSO cse as this is what everyone is telling me I have to get even though they all admit that it teaches little actual anti piracy skills and is effectively "Death By PowerPoint"!
You have now given me food for thought as to what cse I really need.
I have found STCW 95 cses for £720 and I think I would rather spend a little more doing this, than a £500 (give or take) SSO cse.
I think the real problem will be finding a company that does not "require" individuals to do an SSO cse.
Leks.
I found your post very informative.
I am currently actively seeking employment in MarSec and have been looking to get myself on an SSO cse as this is what everyone is telling me I have to get even though they all admit that it teaches little actual anti piracy skills and is effectively "Death By PowerPoint"!
You have now given me food for thought as to what cse I really need.
I have found STCW 95 cses for £720 and I think I would rather spend a little more doing this, than a £500 (give or take) SSO cse.
I think the real problem will be finding a company that does not "require" individuals to do an SSO cse.
Leks.
Recurtment
To all CP Officer
My name is Evan I along with my business partner Run a specialist security unit based in Portland on the south coast in the UK. We may have some job opportunities opening up in the maritime security sector. We also have some work early next year working for a major film company.
We would like to hear from anyone that may be interested in some short and long term contracts If you are interested please visit our web site at [url]www.transeacure.co.uk[/URL] and make contact via our contact page. Please state that you seen this message on CP world.
Thanks for your time.
Ev.
To all CP Officer
My name is Evan I along with my business partner Run a specialist security unit based in Portland on the south coast in the UK. We may have some job opportunities opening up in the maritime security sector. We also have some work early next year working for a major film company.
We would like to hear from anyone that may be interested in some short and long term contracts If you are interested please visit our web site at [url]www.transeacure.co.uk[/URL] and make contact via our contact page. Please state that you seen this message on CP world.
Thanks for your time.
Ev.