Maritime Compliance Report
Welcome. Staying in compliance takes dedication, diligence and strong leadership skills to stay on top of all the requirements which seem to keep coming at a rapid pace. With this blog I hope to provide visitors with content that will help them in their daily work of staying in compliance. I hope you find it a resource worthy of your time and I look forward to your feedback, questions, comments and concerns. Thanks for stopping by.
To avoid missing critical updates, don’t forget to sign up by clicking the white envelope in the blue toolbar below.
Pressure Cooker Bombs?
Pressure cooker bombs! Who knew?
You did hopefully. That is, if you are a "Company, Vessel or Facility Security Officer." The tragic events of this week's Boston Marathon should have come as no surprise to those charged by federal regulations with having, "…general knowledge through training or on the job experience in… recognition of dangerous substances and devices."
Ten years ago, when the Maritime Transportation Security Act regulations were published by the Coast Guard, I was hired by a training company as a subject matter expert to develop a course. It was during my research for this project that I first heard of the pressure cooker bomb. The information that I gathered at the time was that this type of improvised explosive device (IED) was very popular in Malaysia. I incorporated many kinds of IEDs into the course, including pressure cooker bombs.
The issue of recognizing devices has come up quite a few times over the years. For instance, once I was beginning an appeal for my client and started by asking the Captain of the Port for reconsideration on what his staff had decided. It involved the fact the security sweep for devices had to be done. The captain didn't think that the individuals conducting the sweep would know a device if they saw one. That's when I explained the training requirement, that anyone doing the sweep was required by regulation to know about devices. The captain looked surprised and granted our request. However, it was clear that it was being granted upon the condition that everyone with security duties would be fully trained as required by the regulations.
During security audits conducted over the years, to evaluate the training of security guards and vessel personnel, I decided it was a reasonable question to ask, "What would you do if you found a pressure cooker on the barge, or on the facility?" Unfortunately, most of those I asked did not find it as reasonable a question. Did I really think they might one day come across a pressure cooker bomb? Probably not, but in my mind, that didn't change the fact that they were required by federal regulation to know about them. Now the idea doesn't seem that farfetched.
You did hopefully. That is, if you are a "Company, Vessel or Facility Security Officer." The tragic events of this week's Boston Marathon should have come as no surprise to those charged by federal regulations with having, "…general knowledge through training or on the job experience in… recognition of dangerous substances and devices."
Ten years ago, when the Maritime Transportation Security Act regulations were published by the Coast Guard, I was hired by a training company as a subject matter expert to develop a course. It was during my research for this project that I first heard of the pressure cooker bomb. The information that I gathered at the time was that this type of improvised explosive device (IED) was very popular in Malaysia. I incorporated many kinds of IEDs into the course, including pressure cooker bombs.
The issue of recognizing devices has come up quite a few times over the years. For instance, once I was beginning an appeal for my client and started by asking the Captain of the Port for reconsideration on what his staff had decided. It involved the fact the security sweep for devices had to be done. The captain didn't think that the individuals conducting the sweep would know a device if they saw one. That's when I explained the training requirement, that anyone doing the sweep was required by regulation to know about devices. The captain looked surprised and granted our request. However, it was clear that it was being granted upon the condition that everyone with security duties would be fully trained as required by the regulations.
During security audits conducted over the years, to evaluate the training of security guards and vessel personnel, I decided it was a reasonable question to ask, "What would you do if you found a pressure cooker on the barge, or on the facility?" Unfortunately, most of those I asked did not find it as reasonable a question. Did I really think they might one day come across a pressure cooker bomb? Probably not, but in my mind, that didn't change the fact that they were required by federal regulation to know about them. Now the idea doesn't seem that farfetched.
Just because some Coast Guard inspectors may limit their inspections to signs, logs and records, and stickers on file cabinets, does not mean that watching a 30 minute video is sufficient training to meet the regulations. Use this tragedy in Boston as an opportunity to re-focus on maritime security requirements. Actually focus on mitigating the threat of terrorism, and not just mitigating the threat of a Coast Guard fine.
Comments