comment Martyn Wingrove


he carriage of ever more sophisticated bridge technology such as ecdis, bridge navigation watch alarm systems (BNWAS) and AIS may well have improved safety at sea, but there are still too many accidents involving the misuse of navigation electronics or switching off vital alarms, as noted in recent investigations. Criticism is often directed at shipowners for not implementing adequate bridge routines. The number of reported vessel casualties fell year- on-year by 18 per cent to a total of 1,138 in the first half of 2011, figures from Lloyd’s List Intelligence Casualty Service show. The human and economic costs of these casualties are high. In insurance terms, marine hull losses paid and outstanding in 2010 were US$1.75 billion, the International Union of Marine Insurance (IUMI) says. This compares with IUMI’s first estimate for 2009 of $1.73 billion, which was revised up to $2.5 billion as more claims were verified. There has been “some improvement in 2009/2010, especially with regard to claims frequency, but losses and claims costs stabilised at high levels,” said Astrid Seltmann, vice chairman of the organisation’s facts committee at IUMI’s conference in September.


T


maritime disaster every week.” She highlighted a report called The Human Element: a guide to human behaviour in the shipping industry, sponsored by the UK Maritime & Coastguard Agency, supported by BP Shipping, Teekay Marine Services, and the Standard P&I Club and published last year.


A


An average of 18 ships collided, grounded, sank, caught fire or exploded every single day in the five years to 2005, the report said. Insurance claims cost the P&I industry $15 billion over a recent ten-year period, which equates to $4 million a day. Over 65 per cent of this payout, about $10 billion, was for incidents in which humans played the dominant part. John Erfik Hagan, a director of the Norwegian Coastal


Safety Administration agrees: “Communication and exchange of information between ship and shore is essential. Collisions and groundings continue to take place.” In several casualty investigations it has been determined that the watchkeeper has become biased towards reliance


t a seminar in London, also in September, Jo-Anne Watermeyer, head of tanker owner Teekay’s human resources’ strategy group, said: “There is a major


Bridge windows are still the best navaids


on navigation systems rather than looking out of the bridge window to see what is happening. Reports of officers failing to use bridge equipment


correctly, or deliberately switching off alarms, are not uncommon in accident reports. The UK’s Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) has frequently identified equipment misuse. Partly to prevent fatigue-related collisions, IMO introduced BNWAS regulations in July. An apparent flaw in this legislation enables masters to switch off the alarm at any time.


hen new electronic navigation systems are introduced, an early effect is sometimes the opposite of the one desired. Radar-assisted collisions pioneered this phenomenon, and there are examples of ecdis-assisted groundings. Instead of clarifying the circumstances when applying the anti-collision regulations, AIS has on at least one occasion facilitated a protracted discussion between two ships about a simple traffic situation, which only ceased shortly before they collided. The first vessel to go aground with its BNWAS switched off may have been a fishing vessel, but the case still illustrates the point that despite the owner having fitted watch alarms, no company guidance was provided about their proper use. Another accident occurred this year because equipment was switched off. In the collision between container ship Boxford and fishing vessel Admiral Blake in the English Channel in February, MAIB identified AIS as one of the contributing factors: “Had Admiral Blake been transmitting on her AIS, Boxford’s master would have been aware of the fishing vessel’s presence much earlier.” Carrying the right kit doesn’t guarantee that it is being used properly. The imminent mandatory carriage of ecdis brings many more challenges to owners, officers and regulators, with much more scope for misinterpretation and complacency.


W


The UK P&I Club warned the shipping industry of the risks in a report in September. “Although ecdis should make the navigation of ships so much easier, we expect that its incorrect use will feature regularly in accident inquiries,” said Karl Lumbers, a director of UK P&I Club manager Thomas Miller P&I. “Humans tend to put a great deal of trust in machines but machines sometimes fail. There will still be a need to look out of the bridge windows regularly.” MEC


www.marinemec.com


Marine Electronics & Communications


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12