ANCHOR MAGAZINE

Click the Magazine Cover to Read Issue 03 Independent Maritime Review

ISSUE 03

OCT 2026

ANCHOR

INDEPENDENT MARITIME REVIEW

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

THE PRICE

OF A BERTH

WHY A

SHIP WAITS

THE FUEL CHANGED.

DID THE TRAINING?

THE FAMILY RUNS

ANOTHER WATCH

HORMUZ / CREW / CONSEQUENCES

DANGER

MONEY

Extraordinary pay. Exceptional risk.

What protection comes with the money?

SHIPLO.IN

IN MEMORY / 2026

THOSE WHO

NEVER RETURNED

In memory of the seafarers whose lives were lost

in attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz

and the wider Middle East.

24 confirmed seafarer fatalities. IMO incident list, updated 14 October 2026.

Missing persons are not included in this confirmed fatality count.

Source: International Maritime Organization / checked 17 October 2026

ANCHOR

INSIDE ISSUE 03

CONTENTS

IDEAS, OPERATIONS AND LIFE AT SEA

Editor's note

The work and the people behind it.

The price of a berth

Recruitment, trust and the RPSL system.

Why a ship waits

The berth, the clock and the contract.

The Anchor Question

Six readers on life at sea.

What the handover didn't say

The information the next officer needs.

Danger money

The price of fear and the terms that

matter.

CrewConnect

Partner feature and conference

advertisement.

The fuel changed. Did the training?

Preparing the people taking the watch.

SNAME

Knowledge and a wider professional circle.

The family runs another watch

The work and adjustment continuing

ashore.

The cadet is watching

What our everyday conduct teaches.

Off watch, in the game

An independent preview of the maritime

games.

From the ANCHOR community

Shared tables, music and familiar faces.

The work behind the uniform

Four seafarers. Four perspectives.

Shiplo X ShipTek

Media partnership and event calendar.

Maritime Briefs

Professional updates, with dated sources.

Maritime directory

The complete listings and commercial

section.

Anchor Magazine

OCT 2026

CONTENTS

FROM THE EDITOR

Editor's

Note

WELCOME TO ANCHOR

MAGAZINE

Shipping asks ordinary people to carry

extraordinary responsibility.

We know the weight of taking over a watch,

trusting another person's work and handing it

on. That experience shapes what we ask of

ANCHOR.

C/E AMIT KHARETA

Editor-in-Chief

Some of the questions that stay with us are

simple. Who is accountable? Who can make the

decision? Who carries the consequences?

Those questions matter to the young seafarer

offered a first berth, the officer deciding whether

to speak up and the family trying to plan around

an uncertain return.

ANCHOR exists to understand those decisions

and give the people affected by them room to be

heard. Respect for this profession includes a

willingness to question its habits, listen beyond

familiar voices and follow the evidence when it

challenges our own assumptions.

We want readers to leave these pages with a

clearer understanding of the work and better

questions to take back to it. That requires care

with facts, room for disagreement and the

honesty to correct ourselves.

This has been our direction from the beginning.

Our commitment is to keep listening to the

people doing the work and asking what would

make it better.

UNDERSTAND THE WORK.

QUESTION THE DECISIONS.

LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE.

Published by SHIPLO.IN

Anchor Magazine

OCT 2026

FROM THE EDITOR

ANCHOR / RECRUITMENT / COMMENTARY

THE PRICE

OF A BERTH

Stronger oversight deserves support. The test is what changes

for the seafarer accepting a first ship.

BY C/E AMIT KHARETA

Illustration

A berth is supposed to be the beginning of a

career. When the conversation starts with how

many lakhs a young person must pay to obtain it,

the industry has already failed that person.

In conversations with seafarers and people in

recruitment, I repeatedly hear of cadets and

ratings being asked for Rs 5-6 lakh for a first

vessel. That is my experience of those

conversations, not a measured national rate or an

allegation against a named company. It is enough

to make the question worth asking: who is

accountable when the promise of a ship becomes a

transaction with a middleman?

I run an RPSL company. More compliance means

more work and expense for us too. I support

stronger oversight, provided it tests the things

that protect a seafarer and gives an honest

operator a workable route to comply.

THE PROBLEM HAS A PAPER TRAIL

The regulator has described the failures in

concrete terms. DGS Order 08 of 2026 records

unpaid wages, difficulty arranging repatriation,

discrepancies between the vessel in an

employment agreement or Form I and the vessel

actually joined, and involvement of multiple

recruiting agencies. It also records problems with

compensation and recognition of sea service.

These are regulatory findings, rather than a

judgement about every recruitment business. [1]

The paperwork matters because it identifies who

promised what. A young seafarer can hold a

collection of apparently convincing documents

and still need to establish whether the recruiter,

shipowner and vessel form one genuine

employment arrangement.

The Maritime Labour Convention already requires

a recruitment system without recruitment or

placement charges to the seafarer. Its limited

exceptions concern specified personal documents;

visa costs are for the shipowner. A payment

demanded simply to secure employment does not

become acceptable because somebody calls it a

service charge. [2]

Anchor Magazine

OCT 2026

RECRUITMENT

ANCHOR / RECRUITMENT

THE PRICE OF A BERTH

A HIGHER GUARANTEE, A REAL BUSINESS TEST

The 2026 recruitment rules increase the

bank-guarantee requirements. The lowest capacity

band, up to 50 seafarers, requires Rs 25 lakh; the

highest, above 1,000, requires Rs 1 crore. The full

table is shown alongside. Existing valid 2016

licensees have a three-year period for the

differential guarantee, with an exception when

seeking expansion. [3]

A guarantee is a contingent financial commitment.

Its face value should not be described as a

non-refundable government fee or assumed to be

an identical cash deposit for every company.

Banking terms, collateral and access to credit

determine how heavily it bears on a particular

business.

That distinction matters to the debate about small

operators. A small firm can be competent and

responsible. A larger balance sheet does not

establish honest recruitment. If good smaller firms

leave because finance becomes inaccessible, a

policy can reduce competition without proving

that it removed fraud.

The useful test is whether the agency can support

the commitments it makes: identify its principals,

understand the employment arrangement, answer

a complaint and help when a seafarer is stranded.

Inspections should test that capability through

records and actual performance.

A SMALL FIRM CAN BE

COMPETENT AND

RESPONSIBLE.

THE GUARANTEE / RULE 8

Capacity band and required bank guarantee

Up to 50

Rs 25 lakh

Up to 250

Rs 40 lakh

Up to 500

Rs 55 lakh

Up to 750

Rs 70 lakh

Up to 1,000

Rs 85 lakh

Above 1,000

Rs 1 crore

Capacity bands for proposed placements on Indian-flag and

foreign-flag ships; not annual recruitment counts. Source [3],

English text.

FORM 1B IS PART OF THE CHANGE

DGMA Circular 68 of 2026, dated 13 October, sets

15 October for the enhanced RPSL beta module. It

provides for a unified licence covering seafarers

and applicable non-seafarer or technician

categories, and explicitly provides existing RPS

agencies access to generate Form 1B. [4]

It discontinues fresh separate non-seafarer

e-Migrate authorisations under Merchant

Shipping Notice 02 of 2018. Existing separately

authorised entities, other than existing RPSL

holders, are asked to transition within three

months of the circular. The circular schedules

further digital processes for 1 November; a

scheduled rollout should not be confused with

verified operation.

This brings applicable deployments into a more

unified licensing framework. It does not make

every technician a seafarer, or prove that every

business using the earlier route behaved

improperly. Those distinctions deserve to survive

even a strongly worded debate.

Anchor Magazine

OCT 2026

RECRUITMENT

ANCHOR / RECRUITMENT

THE PRICE OF A BERTH

RPSL STATUS / 15 OCTOBER 2026

537

VALID RPSLs

397

INVALID RPSLs

TEMPORARILY BLOCKED RPSLs

CHECK THE RPSL STATUS

An ANCHOR check of the DGS RPSL list on 15

October showed 537 valid RPSLs, 397 invalid

RPSLs and 66 temporarily blocked RPSLs. These

were the listed statuses on that date. An invalid or

blocked status alone is not a finding of fraud. One

snapshot cannot explain how far the market has

shrunk, or why.

DGS Circular 55 of 2025 warns about

unauthorised intermediaries and impersonation. It

advises live licence checks and verification of

joining documents, including the Application

Reference Number and passport details. [5] A

genuine licence number can still be copied into a

false offer. The company behind the offer must

confirm it through independently checked contact

details.

MEASURE WHAT REACHES THE SEAFARER

A grievance system earns trust through what

happens after submission: a traceable case, a clear

response, proper escalation and an outcome the

person can understand. DGMA Circular 67 of

2026 requires prominent display of its 24-hour

grievance information at training institutes and

RPSL establishments. [6] Visibility is useful;

resolution is the measure that follows.

The evidence to look for is practical. Are fewer

people paying for jobs? Are ship and contract

details matching? Are unpaid wages recovered?

Are stranded people brought home sooner? Are

complaints resolved fairly, with reasons? Those

questions can test improvement without assuming

that fewer valid RPSLs mean a cleaner industry.

My support for tighter oversight comes with the

same expectation I would place on my own

company: the work must be visible in the

seafarer's experience. A stronger system should

make a first berth safer to accept, and a

recruitment promise harder to abandon.

FEWER VALID RPSLs

ALONE DO NOT PROVE

A CLEANER INDUSTRY.

Interest disclosure: the author runs Barrow & Trent, an RPSL

company. This commentary reflects that perspective and the

public sources listed below.

SOURCES / CHECKED 16 OCTOBER 2026

[1] DGS Order 08/2026, 14 May: preventive measures on abandonment

[2] ILO MLC, Standard A1.4: recruitment and placement

[3] Merchant Shipping (Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers) Rules, 2026;

rule 8

[4] DGMA Circular 68/2026, 13 October: enhanced RPSL module

[5] DGS Circular 55/2025, 11 December: recruitment fraud advisory

[6] DGMA Circular 67/2026, 9 October: grievance contacts

RPSL list: official e-Samudra guest list, checked 15 October 2026 at 7:42 p.m.; live status may change.

Anchor Magazine

OCT 2026

RECRUITMENT

ANCHOR / SHIP AND PORT / ANALYSIS

WHY A

SHIP WAITS

The berth, the clock and the commercial reason to arrive.

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS / ANCHOR

Container-ship crew, Panama Canal / 2006

A ship can reach the port on time and still be too

early for the work it came to do. The berth may be

occupied. The cargo may not be ready. The pilot,

tugs and tidal window may not coincide. An arrival

time is only one part of a port call.

That makes the familiar question - why did we

hurry, only to anchor? - more interesting than it

first appears. The answer can involve both an

operational bottleneck and a commercial reason

for reaching the waiting place. Solving one does

not automatically solve the other.

THREE CLOCKS, ONE SHIP

There is the ship's clock: the passage plan and the

time needed to arrive safely. There is the port's

clock: when the berth, approach and services can

actually receive it. Then there is the contract's

clock: when obligations are met and particular

time begins to count. These clocks can point

towards different decisions.

BIMCO's Laytime Definitions for Charter Parties

2013 distinguishes laytime, the agreed period

available for loading or discharge without extra

payment beyond freight, from demurrage, the

agreed amount payable for qualifying delay after

laytime expires. Its definitions apply when

expressly incorporated into the contract. The

anchorage watch cannot establish a claim merely

by counting hours. [1]

The same definitions distinguish a notice of

readiness from a simple arrival message. The

notice concerns arrival at the relevant port or

berth and readiness to load or discharge. The

contract, facts and applicable law determine

whether it is effective. An estimated time of

arrival is a forecast; it is not that notice. [1]

Anchor Magazine

OCT 2026

SHIP AND PORT

ANCHOR / SHIP AND PORT

WHY A SHIP WAITS

THE COMMERCIAL REASON TO ARRIVE

The IMO-backed Just In Time Arrival Guide

identifies contractual barriers in voyage

chartering. A master may be expected to proceed

with due despatch even after learning that a berth

will remain occupied. Changing speed can

therefore require a commercial agreement as well

as a better estimate from the terminal. The guide

maps the interdependence of ship, terminal and

port services. [2]

Some contracts expressly address waiting.

BIMCO's Waiting for Berth Clause 2002, for

example, provides for a notice at or off the port

when the berth is unavailable, subject to its

wording and the master warranting actual

readiness. It also treats the subsequent movement

to the berth separately. This is a published clause

that parties may use, not a rule automatically

governing every voyage. [3]

That difference matters when somebody calls

waiting time profitable. Who receives freight, pays

for fuel, carries the cost of extra voyage time or

owes compensation depends on the arrangement.

Even where a claim is available, it does not make

the physical delay disappear. Nor does it make the

ship's next commitment any easier to meet.

ARRIVE WHEN THE PORT CAN RECEIVE YOU

Just-in-time arrival aims to align speed with an

assured opportunity to enter: a berth, fairway and

nautical services available together. It requires a

dependable requested arrival time at the

appropriate location, exchanged early enough to

influence the passage. Slowing down on an

uncertain rumour is a poor substitute for

coordinated planning.

A 2022 study commissioned by the IMO-Norway

GreenVoyage2050 project examined container

voyages using 2019 AIS data. Its modelling found

mean fuel savings of 14.16% when optimisation

covered the whole voyage, 5.90% over the final 24

hours and 4.23% over the final 12 hours. Those are

modelled results for that study, not guaranteed

savings for a particular tanker or bulk carrier. [4]

The useful finding is that information arriving late

can still have value, while earlier coordination

offers more room to act. A terminal need not

promise impossible certainty. It does need to

distinguish a working estimate from an agreed

operational request, and make a changed plan

visible to the people relying on it.

EARLIER COORDINATION / MORE ROOM TO ACT

MODELLED MEAN FUEL SAVING PER CONTAINER VOYAGE

Whole voyage

14.16%

Last 24 hours

5.90%

Last 12 hours

4.23%

Source [4]: 2022 modelling using 2019 AIS data. Common bar scale: 0-15%. Results are scenario averages.

Anchor Magazine

OCT 2026

SHIP AND PORT

ANCHOR / SHIP AND PORT

WHY A SHIP WAITS

A NEW CLAUSE, STILL IN DEVELOPMENT

In August 2026, BIMCO described a draft Virtual

Notice of Readiness and Just in Time Arrival

Clause for voyage charter parties. The proposal

addresses ports where a digital queue can be joined

before physical arrival, while conventional notice

requirements still depend on arrival at the

contractual place. [5]

BIMCO says its draft would allow virtual notice

where the port facilitates it and charterers

consent, with other validity requirements

satisfied. It also proposes a framework for

requested speed changes, sharing fuel savings and

compensating additional voyage time. At the

research cut-off, this source describes

development and consultation. It does not

establish a universally available right to tender

notice from sea. [5]

The importance is the problem it recognises:

cooperation becomes harder when one party saves

fuel while another carries uncompensated time or

contractual exposure. The instruction to optimise

arrival needs an agreement about those

consequences.

THE BOTTLENECK MAY BE ASHORE

The IMO ship-port interface portal also identifies

pre-clearance of customs, immigration, health and

other formalities as a way to reduce waiting.

Port-call optimisation includes coordinating

services and departure, rather than concentrating

only on the ship's approach. Clearing one stage

while a critical service remains unfinished merely

moves the queue. [6]

For the ship, a useful delay record should explain

what prevented the next movement, who supplied

that information and when the plan changed.

Arrival, readiness, service availability and

movement are separate events. Recording them

separately helps the office examine the cause; a

commercial claim still needs its own contractual

assessment.

For the office, the better question is precise: what

information or agreement would have allowed this

ship to use its time differently? A berth forecast?

Confirmed pilot availability? Cargo readiness?

Authority to alter speed without prejudicing the

contract? Each answer points to someone who can

change the next call.

The ship waiting at anchor is the visible end of a

much larger sequence of decisions. A credible

improvement connects the timetable, the

operational plan and the commercial terms before

the crew receives another urgent arrival

instruction.

WHAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THIS SHIP TO USE ITS TIME

DIFFERENTLY?

SOURCES / CHECKED 17 OCTOBER 2026

[1] BIMCO, Laytime Definitions for Charter Parties 2013 (especially definitions

5, 25 and 30).

[2] IMO / Low Carbon GIA, Just In Time Arrival Guide (2020), port-call process

and contractual barriers.

[3] BIMCO, Waiting for Berth Clause 2002.

[4] IMO, Lowering containership emissions through Just In Time arrivals (7

June 2022).

[5] BIMCO, consultation on a Virtual NOR / JIT clause (21 August 2026). Draft

status.

[6] IMO GreenVoyage2050, Ship-Port Interface Measures Portal.

Anchor Magazine

OCT 2026

SHIP AND PORT

THE ANCHOR QUESTION / READER RESPONSES

WHAT'S ONE THING YOU'D

CHANGE ABOUT LIFE AT SEA?

One question. Six responses, identified by rank.

Compiled by Azizur Rahman

DECK CADET

Time to learn

Protected training time, a named mentor and room

to ask a basic question without humiliation.

Getting through the day's jobs should leave time to

understand why they are done, and how progress

towards the first qualification is being assessed.

SECOND OFFICER

Protect the watch

Give navigation the attention it needs. Passage

preparation and administrative work need

realistic time outside the watch, with enough

uninterrupted rest to arrive on the bridge alert.

More screens do not remove the need for a

functioning bridge team.

FOURTH ENGINEER

A proper handover

Make the move from supervised learning to

responsibility less abrupt. A useful handover,

accessible manuals and a senior engineer willing to

explain an unfamiliar system would help a new

officer report honestly and ask for help before a

problem grows.

ABLE SEAFARER / AB

A voice that counts

Listen to the people doing the deck work and

standing lookout. Clear task priorities, decent

recovery time and a respectful response when

someone raises a concern would make it easier to

work safely and feel part of the team.

CHIEF OFFICER

Responsibility with enough support

Cargo, deck maintenance, inspections and the

team's welfare compete for the same hours. Match

the workload with people and time, and make it

possible to raise an unrealistic demand ashore

before fatigue becomes the way the job gets

finished.

MASTER

Support the decision to stop

Give the person responsible for the ship credible

shore support when safety requires a delay or a

different plan. Commercial schedules, staffing and

paperwork should allow the master to protect the

crew's rest and exercise professional judgement.

SEND YOUR QUESTION: amit.khareta@anchormagazine.in

Reader responses supplied to ANCHOR. Respondents are identified by rank.

Anchor Magazine

OCT 2026

COMMUNITY

ANCHOR / OPERATIONS

WHAT THE HANDOVER

DIDN'T SAY

A ship's operating history must survive the people who leave it.

Three investigations show what happens when essential information is lost.

C/E Paramveer / Community photograph

On 6 May 2025, three crew

members aboard the tanker

Wisdom Venture suffered burns

during maintenance on a steam

valve near Sydney. Residual hot

condensate escaped when the

valve was opened.

The Australian Transport Safety

Bureau identified a permanent

modification to a drain line that

had not been documented or

formally assessed. It predated

both the outgoing and incoming

chief engineers. The change was

absent from previous handover

records and had escaped

superintendent inspections.

The relieving chief engineer had

joined on 17 April for a parallel

handover - 19 days before the

accident.

THE SHIP'S HISTORY

HAS TO SURVIVE

THE CHANGE OF CREW.

Community portrait. The investigations discussed concern other vessels.

Anchor Magazine

OCT 2026

OPERATIONS

ANCHOR / OPERATIONS

WHAT THE HANDOVER DIDN'T SAY

Container-ship bridge / Haus / Archive photograph

ECDIS, 2006 / Doclecter

Yet the altered arrangement and its risks had not

been properly communicated. Insufficient cooling

time and incomplete verification of

depressurisation also contributed to the

injuries. [1]

The case raises a practical question about what

overlap achieves. Time together creates an

opportunity to exchange knowledge. Its value

depends on whether the information being

exchanged accurately describes the ship.

A modification can become familiar to successive

crews while remaining absent from drawings,

maintenance records and risk assessments. Each

person taking over then inherits the same

incomplete explanation.

THE DETAIL THAT CHANGES THE JOB

MAIB's Safety Digest 1/2021 describes a

generator starter motor sent ashore for overhaul.

A chief engineer changed while the repair was

underway. The outgoing engineer mentioned the

motor's removal in general terms in his handover

notes.

When the overhauled motor returned, the relief

engineer reinstalled it. Incorrect electrical

connections caused smoke and a small fire. Some

positive cabling on that engine model was black, a

detail omitted from the handover and overlooked

during reconnection.

MAIB highlighted detailed notes, photographs and

references to the manufacturer's instructions,

alongside the need for the person resuming the

work to establish the correct procedure. [2]

An unfinished maintenance job requires a precise

account of where work stopped. The incoming

officer needs to understand what was removed,

what remains isolated, what has been checked and

what still requires verification.

A job title and a completion percentage leave

considerable room for assumptions. Photographs

and notes become useful when they explain the

actual condition in which the equipment has been

left.

The consequences can also cross departmental

boundaries.

AMSA investigated a landing barge collision on 16

March 2022 following a last-minute change of

engineers. The outgoing engineer failed to tell the

incoming engineer that the port main engine's

cooling-water suction valve was shut.

Anchor Magazine

OCT 2026

OPERATIONS

ANCHOR / OPERATIONS

WHAT THE HANDOVER DIDN'T SAY

The engine overheated after departure. While

investigating the problem, the master became

distracted from navigation and the vessel struck a

channel marker. The investigation identified

missing engineering handover procedures

alongside the master's loss of navigational

attention. [3]

The valve's condition mattered to the engineer

receiving the ship. Its effect on propulsion also

mattered to the person navigating it. Information

must reach everyone whose decisions depend on

it.

WHAT TAKING OVER SHOULD ESTABLISH

These cases point to three distinct subjects for a

handover: the equipment's actual configuration,

the state of unfinished work and the ship's present

operating limitations.

They require different evidence. An approved

drawing can explain a modification. A

maintenance record can establish what work was

completed. A current isolation record can identify

equipment unavailable for service. A verbal

explanation helps connect those records to the

equipment and the operation ahead.

A useful discussion should also expose

uncertainty. Record unexplained recurring faults.

Where a repair is reported, identify the work and

its verification. Where an operating restriction

remains, explain its scope to the people affected.

The incoming officer still has to examine the

information and verify conditions appropriate to

the task. Handover supports that judgement;

subsequent work requires its own planning, risk

assessment and controls.

Company arrangements have a substantial role

here. The ISM Code addresses familiarisation,

maintenance records and control of

safety-management documentation. Essential

instructions before sailing are to be identified,

documented and provided. These provisions place

the transfer of knowledge within a continuing

management system. [4]

An effective company process should make

relevant records available before joining, direct

overlap towards significant risks and give

unresolved items a named owner ashore or aboard.

When the installed arrangement differs from the

records, that discrepancy needs investigation and

appropriate control.

The next officer should leave the handover able to

explain the ship's current condition, the

restrictions affecting its operation and the next

action on each significant unresolved item.

FOR EACH UNRESOLVED ITEM

01 / CONDITION

The actual state, including modifications and

unfinished work.

02 / EVIDENCE

The drawing, maintenance entry, photograph

or test record.

03 / LIMITATION

What remains restricted or unverified, and

who needs to know.

04 / ACTION

What happens next, who owns it and when it is

reviewed.

THE NEXT OFFICER

NEEDS THE WHOLE STORY.

SOURCES

[1] ATSB MO-2025-004 (2025)

[2] MAIB Safety Digest 1/2021, Case 15

[3] AMSA: landing-barge collision (2022)

[4] IMO ISM Code, sections 6, 10 and 11

Anchor Magazine

OCT 2026

OPERATIONS

ANCHOR / HORMUZ / ANALYSIS

DANGER

MONEY

Extraordinary pay. Exceptional risk.

What protection comes with the money?

Illustration

A salary large enough to change a family's finances

can make a dangerous voyage sound like an

opportunity. The number is immediate. The

consequences are harder to put on a payslip.

On 6 October, the Financial Times reported tanker

captains receiving rates equivalent to as much as

$100,000 a month, with a reported $50,000 bonus

per Hormuz transit. Its publicly shared report also

described ordinary crew receiving four to six times

normal rates. These were reported packages, not a

universal wage scale. [1]

That distinction is where the useful conversation

begins. Which ship? Which employer? Which

dates? Is the amount a monthly equivalent, an

actual guaranteed monthly wage, or a payment

triggered by completing a particular passage?

Without those answers, a spectacular figure tells a

seafarer very little about an offer.

THE NUMBER IS IMMEDIATE.

THE CONSEQUENCES ARE

HARDER TO PUT ON A PAYSLIP.

Anchor Magazine

OCT 2026

HORMUZ

ANCHOR / HORMUZ

DANGER MONEY

THE PAYSLIP DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE RISK

IMO's confirmed incident list, updated on 14

October, includes GFS Pride as sunk following a

13 October incident in the Strait of Hormuz, and

other vessels damaged that day. Its regional

information also records deaths, injuries and

missing seafarers across earlier incidents. [2] A

dated list is more useful than repeatedly

circulating an old total as though it were current.

The person agreeing to sail is assessing more than

the likelihood of a single attack. There is time in

the area, time waiting at anchor, the possibility of

delayed relief and what happens if the intended

exit becomes unavailable. An offer framed around

one transit needs to explain the employment

arrangement if the voyage changes.

Risk cannot be priced by the crew member alone.

The employer has information about the vessel,

intended employment, security arrangements,

insurance and contractual protections that the

person considering the offer may not yet possess.

Meaningful agreement requires that information

to travel in the same direction as the offer.

A BONUS AND AN ENTITLEMENT ARE DIFFERENT

An individually negotiated incentive is one part of

pay. A benefit under an applicable collective

agreement is another. Their amounts, triggers and

duration may differ. Ask how a special offer

interacts with the ship's existing agreement, rather

than assuming one advertised figure includes

everything.

For covered ships, the IBF list agreed on 1 October

and extended to 22 October designates a defined

Persian Gulf, Hormuz and Gulf of Oman area as

Warlike Operations Area. It provides a bonus

equal to basic wage, with a five-day minimum and

further payment for longer stays, and doubled

death and disability compensation. [3]

The same designation includes the right not to

proceed, repatriation at company cost and

compensation of two months' basic wage. It also

requires enhanced security arrangements

equivalent to ISPS Level 3. Geography and

agreement coverage matter: adjacent areas have

different conditions. These provisions are not

automatic terms on every ship or a replacement

for checking the current text.

The list is time-limited. A screenshot shared by a

friend can be accurate when sent and stale when

somebody joins. The relevant agreement,

designation, coordinates and date need to be

checked together with the company and the

seafarer's representative.

A PAY OFFER NEEDS

A PRECISE EXPLANATION

OF WHAT THE CREW

IS ASKED TO ACCEPT.

BEFORE YOU COMPARE THE FIGURES

Check the ship and the employer.

Read the applicable agreement.

Confirm the designation and its dates.

Ask how the additional pay is calculated.

Anchor Magazine

OCT 2026

HORMUZ

ANCHOR / HORMUZ

DANGER MONEY

WHAT AN INFORMED CHOICE REQUIRES

Before agreement, the crew needs a clear

description of intended employment and the

current company risk assessment. They need to

understand the security briefing, how emergency

instructions will be communicated, and whom

they can approach if the arrangement changes.

The particulars belong in the discussion before

joining, while questions can still affect the

decision.

A written pay explanation should state the basic

wage, additional payment, currency and

calculation period. It should explain the event that

earns a transit bonus, how waiting time is treated,

when money becomes payable and what happens

if the vessel cannot complete the intended

passage.

Insurance needs equally careful language. The sum

paid to insure a ship is not a crew benefit. A high

hull war-risk premium says nothing by itself about

a family's entitlement after an injury or death. The

relevant employment terms, collective agreement

and financial-security documents answer different

questions.

The MLC treats repatriation and shipowners'

liability as specific protections within its

applicable framework. [4] The actual documents

and applicable law matter. A verbal assurance that

someone is fully covered is too vague to explain

the route to help, the responsible party or the

terms of a claim.

THE DIFFICULT PART OF SAYING NO

A person with debt, family expenses or a long wait

between contracts can find an exceptional offer

persuasive. That is a reason to take the decision

seriously. It is not a reason to dismiss the person as

reckless or to treat acceptance as evidence that

every question was answered.

The practical test of a choice includes what follows

refusal. If the applicable agreement gives a right

not to proceed, the company should explain how it

is exercised, who arranges relief and repatriation,

and how the person receives the stated benefits.

Uncertainty about those steps can make a paper

right difficult to use.

Managers have a corresponding responsibility to

keep the discussion factual. A crew member asking

about cover, relief or the right to refuse is asking

about the conditions of employment. Those

questions deserve a clear answer before a yes is

requested.

MONEY STILL MATTERS

There is no need to pretend that compensation is

unimportant. Seafarers work for a living.

Exceptional demands can justify exceptional pay.

The error is allowing a large number to become the

entire explanation of what the company is asking

someone to accept.

The more extraordinary the offer, the more

precise the explanation should be. What is paid,

what is protected, what can change and what

choices remain should all be clear enough for the

crew member to explain them to somebody at

home.

Danger money recognises that an assignment

carries exceptional risk. It does not discharge the

responsibility to reduce that risk, inform the crew

or honour their agreements. Those responsibilities

continue after the bonus has been negotiated.

PUT THE OFFER IN WRITING

Basic wage / additional pay / qualifying event / waiting time / payment date / relief and repatriation

SOURCES / CHECKED 16 OCTOBER 2026

[1] Financial Times, 6 October 2026; publicly shared report by u/financialtimes

[2] IMO confirmed incident list, updated 14 October 2026

[3] IBF designated risk areas, agreed 1 October; extended to 22 October 2026

[4] ILO MLC: repatriation, shipowners' liability and applicable standards

Anchor Magazine

OCT 2026

HORMUZ

PARTNERSHIP / SHIPLO X CREWCONNECT GLOBAL

CREW MANAGEMENT

UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT

Shiplo will take your stories to Manila.

Full media coverage in the next edition.

CrewConnect Global / Partner archive

CrewConnect Global 2026 takes place from 20-22

October at Shangri-La The Fort, Manila,

Philippines. The conference brings shipowners,

associations, charities, educational institutions

and other stakeholders together around crewing,

training and seafarer welfare.

FIVE PRESSURES ON THE AGENDA

The partner programme highlights five connected

issues: geopolitical uncertainty and seafarers

caught between sanctions, war and international

law; the hidden costs of the officer shortage;

abandonment and criminalisation; preparing

crews for rapidly advancing technology; and the

gap between recorded rest-hour compliance and

actual fatigue.

These subjects reach beyond a crewing

department. They concern the people accepting a

contract, the officers carrying responsibility

aboard and the shore teams expected to support

them.

THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM

Andreas Nordseth and Guy Platten co-chair the

conference. The partner programme identifies

participation from BIMCO, Holland America Line

and Seabourn, the ITF, the Philippines

Shipowners Association, the International

Chamber of Shipping, World Maritime University,

ISWAN and OSM Thome.

It also lists Wilhelmsen Ship Management,

Anglo-Eastern, Columbia Shipmanagement,

Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement, Teekay

Shipping, Marlow Navigation, BW Group, Synergy

Marine Group, Holland America Group and the

Norwegian Shipowners Association among

participating organisations.

BEYOND THE CONFERENCE SESSIONS

A dedicated expo will feature crewing technology,

training simulators and welfare solutions.

Structured networking, private meeting spaces

and social events will give delegates time to

continue discussions and make professional

connections.

Shiplo will bring media coverage in the next

edition. Current programme, attendance and

registration information is available from the

organiser.

PROGRAMME AND REGISTRATION / CREWCONNECT GLOBAL

Anchor Magazine

OCT 2026

PARTNERSHIP

OCT 2026

Anchor Magazine

OCT 2026

ANCHOR / ENGINEERING / ANALYSIS

THE FUEL CHANGED.

DID THE TRAINING?

New fuels are already a crewing question.

Preparation must reach the person taking the watch.

Chief engineer on watch, ferry Bastø IV / Ulflarsen

A fuel change arrives aboard as equipment: tanks,

pipework, controls, alarms and operating limits.

For the person taking the watch, it also changes

the questions that must be answered before an

ordinary task is safe. Experience remains valuable.

Its assumptions need checking against the new

installation.

Shipping has spent years discussing which fuels

will power the next fleet. The practical question is

now closer: what will the people assigned to those

ships be prepared to do? A course title on a joining

checklist provides only part of that answer.

Shipboard work illustrated above; this photograph does not depict an alternative-fuel installation.

Anchor Magazine

OCT 2026

ENGINEERING