Too many grey areas in box weighing

Reviewing the past three years, peak interest in container weighing occurred in 2015 and early 2016, before the IMO’s SOLAS regulation on verified gross mass of containers was enforced. This early interest led to orders to ensure that at least a few cranes in customers’ yards met the requirements by the time the regulation became effective on July 1, 2016.

Since that date, the container-weighing market has slowed down; indeed, we have observed quite a few terminals worldwide that have adopted a “wait and see” position, looking at how the topic develops in the coming years.

Weighing equipment manufacturers saw huge potential in the implementation of the regulation but were disappointed on how it was finally enforced. The implementation of Method 2 (weighing of the container content and adding the tare weight of the container) left the door open for terminals to move around investments on weighing equipment either on the yard or on the terminal entry.

We saw, and still see, terminals having doubts about moving capital expenditure into equipment that they don’t see as a “must have”. But there is more value-add that can be installed on cranes to improve a terminal’s operations.

Safety features that can sit alongside weighing features include dragging detection, snag load detection, and eccentricity or twistlock overload monitoring. We have customers that use our data logging functions to monitor their twistlock lifecycles on the yard. In a case of an extensive overload on one twistlock logged into our processing unit the customer can detect a structural broken spreader which, if left unchecked, could have led to a serious accident.

Risks still evident

Containers are still being handled that are overloaded and/or over-eccentric, yet non-existent or extremely low penalties keep this Method 2 approach alive. Nothing will change until this regulation is reviewed.

We have heard many rumours on the cancellation of Method 2 which sounds like a simple solution, but it has to be considered that this will actually make things more complicated for shipping lines.

Some global terminal operators offer the weighing process as a service for shipping lines. This makes sense as the return on investment in weighing systems is relatively short considering the prices for the systems and the fees that can be realistically charged for those services. Also, weighing systems installed in the yard have the advantage of not impacting the terminal operation or the shipping processes at all. Weighing data can be integrated to the customers’ requirements. Intensive co-operation with the terminal operator’s IT department is a key factor to achieving the most satisfying results.

Standardised implementation of SOLAS’s container weighing regulation is also an issue. Our research on different countries tolerances for accuracy has demonstrated that it is difficult to comply with local regulation that either has not set tolerances for accuracy targets or has set them at ridiculous levels. Achieving the OIML R51 certification in March 2017 was a step in the right direction for the Conductix-Wampfler weighing system LASSTEC, but each country still has to be considered case by case.

Ultimately, without a strict and standardised container weighing regulation all parties in the supply chain are at risk, including insurance companies. The next accident will be too late to think about a change. While weighing equipment manufacturers will certainly benefit from revised regulations, so too will the overall safety level of the entire industry.

Alexander Eckardt is business development manager, focus market container, at Conductix-Wampfler.