Following Transport and Logistics News' recent report on the TWU's concerns about road tankers (Defuse mobile bombs [dangerous tanker trucks]: TWU), our expert reader Nelson Mansfield has offered the following counter argument.
Nelson writes: "I have held current and previous positions in the oil, gas and chemical field. I would like to correct your article on a few issues at hand.
My experience has been at the forefront of petroleum/gas distribution (15 years in logistics) held with the largest major in the industry. My accountability as such was the distribution of regional fuel to NSW, Victoria, SA servicing from multiple locations as well as servicing a bulk gas contract throughout Victoria and Tasmania. I am hoping to give you an insight in a general brief of the other of the fence, operational management.
Your article highlights some valued concern; yes petrol tankers are as quoted "mobile bombs", but in general are completely safe if handled by a properly trained driver with the accredited training provided working for an organisation that plays by the rules. However, drivers are not always the face of innocence.
"And 45% of drivers say employers routinely delay brake maintenance, with one saying his tanker was 13,000 kilometres overdue for servicing."
This quote by drivers is an overstatement, regardless if it was a survey or not. The actual facts are that all the major fuel distributors nationally are all accredited under NHVAS, this is a requirement of fuel cartage agreements throughout Australia. As a carrier, you cannot perform fuel delivery tasks for a fuel supplier or distributor unless you are under this accreditation.
Secondly, all the majors audit the 3PL fuel carriers, including their own operations every 12 months, along with NHVAS audit requirements that follow. To be under the NHVAS scheme is a very diligent process and mechanical audits are a frequent occurrence, especially in the petroleum and gas caper. As an operations manager for bulk fuel distribution, we continually ran programs and awareness sessions with drivers in 'tool-box' meetings, including 'National Stop For Safety' days. And it was as that, the business ceased operations for a full day to discuss safety concerns and better to highlight the issues. Also, we regularly discussed vehicle updates and major repairs on vehicles.
In my previous roles, I have encountered drivers who commonly note that they are all mechanics. Drivers come and will tell me the transmission is stuffed, this truck needs a new gearbox, the shocks are gone, the seats too hard, etc. I would encounter weekly that a driver would say to me "why have I been allocated to that vehicle, I don't like this truck it's too slow, it struggles up hills, the seat hurts my back, it bounces too much on open the road, it's not roadworthy," or simply they just don't like it – they would prefer to drive the new truck. In some cases, I would request a driver to perform an extra shift and the question would be asked, only if I can have the new truck or forget it, I'm not coming in to work. When in fact most cases the truck is perfectly sound and in a roadworthy state.
That's great, but not every business can go out and afford to purchase a $250,000 prime mover just because a driver doesn't want to drive it.
My preach, to all drivers when working under my management, was that if it's not safe, don't do it. Yet on many occasions drivers would still proceed, an incident occurs and then the drivers try to blame the system. Their reason was that "well the customer needed there fuel badly", explained to the driver that he does not have the authority to make that decision, his part is to deliver the fuel in a safe and efficient manner, especially when he has been directed by a senior manager to not proceed. I have dismissed, over a period of 3-4 years, 10 drivers who have breached or disobeyed direct orders from management. Out of those 10 drivers, 4 were deemed as major incidents that were completely at the blame of the driver who effectively cost the company in excess of $500k to the business from the incidents that took place.
BFM (Basic Fatigue Management) is probably the main topic of discussion. This is a system that is at a failure mode. With the introduction of many systems, NavStar, Drive Cam etc., Navman drivers' locations/whereabouts can be monitored constantly. However, 50% of the reason that these systems are employed is:
1. To monitor driver's behaviours as there is no trust.
2. Monitor drivers' BFM and working hours.
Drivers constantly in all trucking industry play with their hours on logbooks, declare rest breaks at work when in fact they are at home, and also sneak 1-2 hours here and there by not stopping and having there required breaks. One driver I had working as a petroleum driver was not having a required break back from a NSW run he regularly performed, calculated that he cheated approx. 6 hrs per week for 13 months (312 hrs was at a cost of approx. $25-30K), and was dismissed from his position. I find it very difficult that companies like Shell pressure their drivers to deliver. Shell, along with BP and Caltex, have impeccable transport safety records and for many years the regional channel of BP was run by its own operation, employing its own drivers, own trucks and trailer, own operational and terminal staff.
Yes, incidents do occur and, some that are unfortunately tragic, however, I can assure you that under the common practice of the fuel and gas businesses I worked for, we never pressured drivers to perform their task."