Step Change for Safety A Shell Marine Initiative

Volume 1, Issue 06 1st July 2013

GLOBAL SHARING
10 AMSTERDAM PARTICIPANTS JOIN GLOBAL SHARING FORUM
INSIDE THIS ISSUE: Head Injury Electric burns Finger Laceration LPG and LNG contact Contact averted Leg Injury Caption Winner 2 2 2 3 3 4 4

FOR OTHER

97 Amsterdam Participants

What are you waiting for? You have nothing to lose by pitching in.

SURVEY RESULTS EFFECTIVENESS OF GLOBAL SHARING

Last month, we carried out a Survey to gauge the effectiveness of GLOBAL SHARING forum. The results speak for themselves as shown in the graphs on the right.. BOTTOM LINE IT IS AN EFFECTIVE TOOL TO PROMOTE SAFETY ACROSS THE INDUSTRY.
For further details visit www.stepchangeforsafety.com

YES=32 NO=17
HAS GLOBAL SHARING BENEFITED YOUR ORGANISATION?

Dear Participants Pls help us by completing a short survey about this GLOBAL SHARING forum. Keeping CTRL button pressed; please click on the link below to start the survey. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3K2F8XC

Page 2

GLOBAL SHARING

Injury: Head injury during routine maintenance on Generator Engine

THE INCIDENT On a tanker during routine maintenance on diesel generator engine sump cleaning, a wiper trying to remove cleaning stick rushed to get out of way as the engine was being turned and struck his head at the top of the sump tank entrance. CAUSES Root Causes were Inadequate Leadership, Inadequate Supervision, Lack of experience, Lack of skills, Inadequate Communication, Contributory causes were Inadequate guards, barriers inadequate warning system LESSONS LEARNT An experienced Officer should be appointed to supervise the work progress and situational awareness of the worker. Seafarers must be monitored to ensure that they do not become complacent so as to put themselves or others at risk.

Photo, taken from web, is for demo purposes only.

DPA will circulate the Inexperienced personnel should incident and lessons learnt. be closely monitored during their He will advise vessel to early days onboard. isolate work areas.

Injury: Electric burns from Windlass panel in dry-dock

THE INCIDENT During repairs in yard, the Ch Engr and 4th Engineer were working on windlass panel to override interlock to enable lowering of anchor chains, when supervisors torch touched live wires in the panel creating a hail of sparks All three suffered burns. . LESSONS LEARNT 1. An effective toolbox meeting and Risk Assessment should have been carried out . 2. Unqualified person (yard supervisor) should not have been part of a Team carrying out work. 3. Appropriate tools, aids and PPE should have been used in relation to the nature of job. (Metallic Maglite Torch was used near live wires) 4. Inadequate insulation protection for the wires connected to the circuit breaker. 5.Extreme care is to be taken and alertness is important while working on / near electrical installations.

Injury: Finger laceration

THE INCIDENT During loading operations, one of the teams (O/S and Dk. cadet) was assisting loading Master with adjustment of support jack for vapour arm. The loading Master removed the pin from one of the legs of supporting jack, causing it to collapse and drop, crushing cadets finger. LESSONS LEARNT 1. Do not assist or be actively involved in shore operations. They are NOT responsible if any injuries are caused to ships crew from this. Furthermore, they shall hold the ship responsible for any damage to their equipment that may result. 2. Be aware of prevailing situation at all times. Never put any body part at risk of being crushed by a heavy object that may drop/fall/slide. 3. More effective communication

GLOBAL SHARING Property damage: Collision LPG with LNG vessel in Tokyo By
THE INCIDENT
Our LPG/C was enroute to Kawasaki, Japan for loading Propylene. Her passage plan was to follow Uraga Suido and Nakanose Traffic Routes and finally head towards Tsurumi Passage Pilot boarding area. At 1210 hrs, she commenced altering to her next course 338T slowly and observed a LNG/C on her starboard bow at a distance of about 3nm indicating a CPA of 0.4 nm, passing astern. The LNG/C was outbound from Chiba with a pilot on board and escorted by two tugs. By the time heading of the LPG/C vessel reached 357T she stopped altering to port and continued on a northerly heading. At 1214 hrs, the tugs called on VHF Channel 16, asking our vessel to stop immediately. The Master stopped engine and FINDING a very close quarter situation immediately put on astern movement to avoid collision; however, at 1220 hrs, the LPG/C vessel collided on the port side mid-ship region of the LNG/C. evident:

Page 3

LESSONS LEARNT
1. Following non-compliance with COLREG was o Rule 5 Ineffective lookout to appraise the situation. o Rule 7 Inadequate use of RADAR/ Automatic Tracking Aid to appraise the situation. Lack of appreciation of apparent change in bearing when approaching a large target at a close range. o Rule 8 Inadequate action to avoid close-quarter situation/ collision o Rule 15 Crossing ahead of stand on vessel, when circumstances required otherwise. o Rule 16 Failing to take appropriate action to avoid the collision as a give way vessel o Rule 17 Adequate collision avoidance actions by the LNG vessel as a Stand-on vessel were not evident when she found that collision could not be avoided by the action of the give way vessel alone, 2. Standard parameters like experience and formal training certification, compliance to matrix are not necessarily a guaranteed deterrent towards untoward incidents occurrence; 3. Importance of proper look out, tracking of targets in the vicinity and effective monitoring of traffic movements are crucial irrespective of conducive weather/ visibility condition and/ or familiarity with the area. 4. The possibility of failing to apply the knowledge in practice even for experienced seafarers cannot be ruled out. 5. There is no substitute to continual motivation and retraining of the floating staff.

After the collision both the vessels were safe with no personal injury and/ or pollution. However there were structural damages

Near Miss: Close encounter averted at Singapore Anchorage

THE INCIDENT
Own vessel was at anchor at Singapore EPA. Other vessel MT OHIO was anchored at port quarter at a parallel distance of about 0.25 nm. During the change of tide MT OHIO (& also other vessels at anchorage) were observed to head in different direction. Shortly MT OHIO was suspected dragging anchor & closing onto own vessel. The distance was 0.14NM and closing. Port control & Pilots were informed, Engine prepared & anchor station called immediately. Anchor cable was shortened & situation observed closely. Later MT OHIO was observed picking up anchor, proceeding under engine & re-anchoring at further distance of 0.25 Nautical miles away. If MT OHIO closing in was not noticed in time, it could have lead to an allision / hull contact incident under different weather condition. The Near Miss was discussed in detail with all Bridge Team Members and was emphasized to maintain high Watch keeping standard.

LESSONS LEARNT
Prompt action of the Bridge team prevented further escalation of the near miss into an incident. In Singapore, anchorages are congested with ships anchored very close to each other often at 2-2.5cables parallel distance from each other. During slack water, tidal streams vary at small distances & ships head in different directions and swinging also vary considerably. The anchor watches at Singapore demand high situational awareness & extreme vigilance especially at slack water, it would help to establish nearby ships approximate turning circle at flood tide when ships head in similar direction. Any significant change of aspect together with closing distance should warrant extra precaution & all necessary preventive actions including calling anchor stations, preparing the engines, requesting Pilot, drawing attention of other ships, rigging fenders etc.

Page 4

GLOBAL SHARING

Personnel Injury: Lifeboat Drill

THE INCIDENT
The crew was preparing to secure the lifeboat after their drill and exercise of lowering. During the final securing process after the boat falls reached the limit switch of the motor assisted hoist, the duty officer and able seaman took turns in hand cranking the remaining gap prior to the boat resting on the cradle and being secured by the lock pin. On securing but prior to the lock pin, the 2Mate who was team leader was standing in front of the winch when the wire rope snapped and caused it to unravel from its original location creating a whiplash. The officer did not have enough time to evade this and his right leg got caught in the whiplash. The officer sustained a fractured leg and was rushed to the hospital and treated accordingly. The lifeboat was secured temporarily by messenger ropes and replacement wire rope was immediately bought by agent onshore and installed by the crew.

LESSON LEARNT
After a thorough investigation and root cause analysis, it was determined that the type of wire rope (make and dimension) were not of the requirements in the manual. The supplier mistakenly gave an ungalvanized wire rope of undersized diameter than the specification ordered hence the failure due to rapid tension build up and pre-mature deterioration. The C/E and/or duty engineer failed to check the wire rope prior to installation which was done in the dry-dock several months earlier. Shipyard workers installed the wire rope without knowledge of the required specifications as it was supplied by the ship operator. Corrective action was the immediate replacement to the correct specification of wire rope and checking of all wire rope bought with said supplier and installed on board

MESSAGE TO INDUSTRY
Accidents often occur when various safety barriers fail one after the other. In this case the requisition was incorrect, the supply was not correct, the wire was not matched with existing certificates, supervision was found superficial. Companies should have procedures in place to match supplies, and monitor same, especially to critical identified safety equipment. Third parties need supervision by Ship-staff.

POSTED BY G SACHDEVA

CAPTION COMPETETION WINNER CAPT VIJAY RANGAROO MTMM SINGAPORE

GREEN WAVE SHIPPING PTE LTD

15, HOE CHIANG ROAD, T OW E R FI F TEE N 21 -02 ,

SINGAPORE 089316

+65 6223 8553 ph +65 6223 8557 fx

stepchangeforsafety@gmail.c om

. INDUSTRY

Were on the Web!

See us at:
www.stepchangeforsafety.com
Disclaimer: The articles and views presented here are from contributions by participants in the Shell Safety Seminar. The author or the compa ny bears no responsibility for w hat is stated he rein. This new sletter is for information onl y a nd an effort to share incidents w ith a view to promote safety across the industr y.

ACCIDENTS

Winning Caption One I-Pad for you and one for me.