Patterns and deficiency clusters that go beyond individual cases.
Frequent deficiencies and organisational weaknesses.
Compare external data with your own patterns.
Transfer into checklists, audit focus areas and communication materials.
Shore managers — whether superintendent, fleet director or DPA — work with a specific information requirement: they must filter from large data volumes those insights that are immediately relevant for their fleet and their areas of responsibility. EMSAFE provides these data, but in a format tailored to regulators and authorities, not to operational managers.
The translation effort consists of three steps. First: identification of the relevant vessel type category. EMSAFE is structured by cargo ship, tanker, passenger vessel, fishing and offshore. A bulk carrier manager need not know the tanker-specific data in detail, but the overarching patterns — such as human factors-related casualties — are relevant for all.
Second: comparison with one's own incident statistics. Every operator holds their own data on near-misses, incidents and deficiencies. Comparing these with EMSAFE data reveals whether one's own fleet is above or below the industry average — and in which categories. This benchmark is a valuable instrument for management reviews and vis-a-vis charterers and insurers.
Third: derivation of prevention priorities. When EMSAFE documents an industry-wide rise in machinery damage-related incidents, a shore manager should verify whether their maintenance planning, spare parts supply and crew qualification in this area are adequate. This proactive use distinguishes good fleet management from reactive damage administration.
A specific aspect for shore managers is the PSC-related analysis. EMSAFE provides data on detention rates by flag state and deficiency category. For a superintendent managing vessels under different flags, these data are directly actionable: flag states with elevated inspection intensity require more thorough preparation.
The most efficient use of EMSAFE in shore management requires no additional systems but integration into existing processes. Three concrete approaches have proven effective.
First: EMSAFE as a fixed item in the annual management review. Once a year, following publication of the report, the sections relevant to one's own fleet are analysed and compared with own data. The results feed into annual planning for audits and training.
Second: EMSAFE deficiency trends as the basis for pre-PSC checklists. When certain deficiency categories increase industry-wide, the corresponding inspection points should be weighted more heavily in the internal pre-PSC checklist. This is a simple measure with measurable effect on detention avoidance.
Third: EMSAFE findings as input for internal safety communication. Relevant patterns and trends can feed into safety bulletins, toolbox talks and onboard communication. This signals to the crew that shore management uses current industry data and acts preventively.
In an increasingly transparent market — with vessel screening platforms, charterer vetting and ESG assessments — one's own safety performance becomes a competitive factor. Operators who can demonstrate that their detention rate is below the industry average and that they systematically respond to EMSAFE findings have an advantage in charter negotiations.
EMSAFE provides the reference framework for this benchmarking. The data are publicly available, methodologically transparent and produced by a recognised institution. No operator can argue ignorance of the data — and none should.
This benchmarking becomes particularly relevant during the transition to alternative fuels. Charterers and insurers will increasingly ask about the safety record of dual-fuel vessels. Operators who proactively benchmark their safety data against EMSAFE and document improvement measures position themselves as responsible partners.
For shore managers using EMSAFE systematically for the first time, a prioritisation is recommended. Start with the deficiency data — these have the most direct connection to daily operations. Compare the most frequent deficiency categories with your own PSC results from the last two years. Identify categories where your fleet is disproportionately affected.
Next, analyse the casualty patterns by vessel type. Which casualty categories most frequently affect your fleet type? Are your internal prevention measures aligned with these categories? If not, action is required.
Finally, examine the human factors data. If your own incident analysis shows a high proportion of human factors — which is typical industry-wide — investments in resource management training and fatigue management should be prioritised.
Free initial consultation – we analyze your situation and find the best path forward.
Request Consulting