In October 2023, AMSA (Australian Maritime Safety Authority) introduced minor changes to Marine Order 504 (MO504), specifically in relation to certificates of operation and operational requirements under national law. These changes were largely focused on refining the wording for clarity and improved understanding. However, this was only part of the proposed updates to MO504. AMSA has also proposed a more substantial set of changes, which are still pending confirmation. Among these proposed changes, one stands out as particularly impactful for domestic commercial vessels (DCVs) - the introduction of enhanced maritime fatigue management provisions.
Proposed Change to Maritime Fatigue Management
The change I’m referring to under consideration relates to fatigue management and its impact on crewing levels. According to AMSA’s proposal, the risk of fatigue must be factored into crewing decisions for DCVs. Specifically, the amendment would emphasise that the fatigue of the master and crew must be considered when determining risk-based crewing arrangements for a vessel. One key provision under discussion would restrict vessels from operating with a minimum crew if they are unable to provide the master and crew members with at least 10 hours of rest in every 24-hour period.
The goal of these changes is to ensure that fatigue risk is appropriately addressed, with operators required to plan for adequate rest periods for their crew. The proposed amendment also includes a definition of “rest” to clarify what constitutes appropriate rest for the purposes of this regulation. AMSA highlights that fatigue is a significant contributor to workplace accidents in the maritime sector, noting a recent survey where 40% of respondents reported getting fewer than six hours of sleep within a 24-hour period while at sea.
This proposed change is aimed at improving safety by ensuring that crew members are not overworked, reducing the likelihood of errors that could lead to accidents and environmental damage. The overarching aim is to protect both crew safety and vessel operations.
The Case for Maritime Fatigue Management
Fatigue management is not a new concept in transport industries. For example, heavy vehicle drivers in Australia are required to maintain logbooks and adhere to strict rest period regulations, with enforcement through fines and penalties. Fatigue-related issues in the maritime industry also gained significant attention in the early 2000s, when reports from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) frequently noted that fatigue played a major role in marine incidents. This attention has led to gradual changes in maritime regulations, with both Australian-registered vessels and international vessels now required to follow International Maritime Organization (IMO) fatigue guidelines.
In fact, fatigue management has been steadily evolving in the maritime sector. For example, the last pilot organization I worked with employed a computer-based fatigue management program that flagged any irregularities in work schedules, based on established circadian rhythms. This system limited the number of consecutive night shifts and defined "night work" as any shift between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM. The goal of such programs is to prevent fatigue from becoming a safety risk, and they offer valuable insight into how to implement fatigue management on vessels.
AMSA has also published comprehensive guidelines on fatigue management, which explain the physiological effects of fatigue, how to manage rosters effectively, and the latest scientific research on the topic. These guidelines, based on the IMO’s MSC.1/Circ. 1598, serve as an excellent resource for maritime personnel, particularly for those operating under Australian regulations. I highly recommend Mariners read the AMSA Fatigue Guidelines document here. AMSA's document stresses Australia’s leadership in the development of science-based fatigue risk management guidelines and aims to help operators understand and mitigate the risk of fatigue in all commercial vessels.
The Challenge of Implementing Change
Despite the clear safety benefits, introducing a mandatory fatigue management system in the domestic commercial vessel sector poses significant challenges. For many operators - particularly in smaller or family-run businesses - fatigue management regulations could be seen as a burden, especially when many vessels have operated successfully for years without such systems in place.
One key issue is the perception that fatigue management isn’t necessary in certain sectors, particularly where crews have long-established practices that are perceived as effective. Take, for example, the fishing fleet in Australia. Many fishermen have worked their own sleep-rest schedules for decades, adjusting their routines based on personal experience rather than scientific guidelines. How can AMSA convince these operators to adopt a formal system that could be seen as unnecessary or burdensome?
Similarly, in the Whitsundays, retired yachts from the Sydney to Hobart race are repurposed for tourist charters, operating with minimal crew, doing a 3-day 2-night charter, often back to back. These vessels have successfully carried out their duties for years with limited staffing, and operators may be reluctant to increase crew numbers based on the argument that fatigue could lead to accidents. Given the already thin profit margins in the chartering business, additional crew requirements could be seen as an unwelcome cost burden.
Balancing Duty of Care with Operational Feasibility
However, it’s important to consider the broader implications of fatigue management, particularly in the context of duty of care. A good fatigue management system would allow crew members to inform management when they’re too fatigued to work, without needing to disclose personal details - such as a sleepless night due to family issues or external stressors. In such cases, a responsible manager would have a duty to ensure that the fatigued crew member gets adequate rest and is not pressured to work.
Furthermore, operators and vessel owners must consider the potential legal and insurance risks. If a fatigued crew member is allowed to operate a vessel and an accident occurs, the consequences could be severe, not only in terms of human safety but also in terms of liability. If an AMSA investigation reveals that a fatigued crew member had informed management of their condition prior to the incident, the operator could face reprisal from AMSA or legal exposure, including issues with insurance coverage. With increasing litigation risks, this is a scenario that many operators would prefer to avoid.
Conclusion: A Future-Forward Approach
Change is coming, whether through the upcoming revisions to MO504 or in future updates. Fatigue remains a pressing issue in the domestic commercial vessel industry, and AMSA is working to implement measures that will bring the sector into line with global standards. However, the question remains: How can AMSA introduce a fatigue management system that meets the needs and realities of vessel operators and owners while also ensuring crew and vessel safety?
The challenge lies in finding a balance that protects the health and safety of workers, while being mindful of the operational realities of the domestic commercial fleet. Operators and owners must weigh the potential benefits of fatigue management against the operational and financial impacts of implementing new systems. Ultimately, the goal should be to ensure that the maritime industry continues to operate safely while evolving to meet modern safety and health standards.
What do you think? Will these changes affect your maritime operation? Share your thoughts - we’d love to hear your perspective on how fatigue management could be integrated into the industry without disrupting the hard work that goes into running a vessel.
For more information on Fatigue Management check out the latest release of the Second Edition of the Small Vessels Manual – Chapter 3: Safe working practises – page 79.
Capt. Cal
Sail your own course.
Useful links: