Kristiansen Svein. Maritime Transportation: Safety Management and Risk Analysis
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
12.3.4 The Cost of Accidents
Eriksen (2000) has also given an indication of the typical cost of a work accident in
shipping (see Table 12.7). These cost figures consist of:
. Medical treatment
. Lost production
. Material loss
. Administration costs
. Cost of loss of welfare or quality of life
12.4 ACCIDENT SITU A TION
A Swedish study in the late 1970s gave the following characterization of hazardous work
conditions (Iverga
˚
rd et al., 1978):
1. Deck department:
. Mooring
. Handling of hatch covers
. Work on scaff olding or above floor (height work)
Table 12.6. Occupational accident rate (LTI) versus ship type for the Danish
International Registry (DIS),1993^99
Ship type Accident rate per 10
6
work hours
All accidents Permanent injury Fatal accidents
Container ships 5.59 0.37 0.04
Dry cargo 6.58 0.86 0.09
Coasters 6.19 1.10 0.28
Ro-Ro 11.51 1.08 0.13
Passenger ships 11.00 0.40 0.05
Tankers 9.45 0.90 0.06
Gas tankers 1.70 0.26 0.04
Other ship types 7.44 1.10 0.14
All ships 7.35 0.75 0.11
Source: Hansen and Vinter (2004).
Ta b l e 1 2 . 7. Cost of accidents in Norwegian shipping
Degree of seriousness Cost in 1995 (NOK)
Fatality 16,600,000
Very serious accident 11,370,000
Serious accident 3,750,000
Less serious 500,000
Average accident Approx. 1,500,000
346 CHAPTER 12 OC CUPATIONAL SA FETY
2. Engine department:
. Handling tools in narrow/confined spaces
. Handling of heavy machine objects or large tools
. Carrying of objects on staircases and ladders
3. Hotel department:
. Slippery floor
. Hot surfaces and sharp objects in sea motion
4. General problems:
. Ladders
. Slippery and uneven floor or deck
The study also pinpointed factors that contributed to or initiated accidents. The
ranking of factors was done for work and off-duty respectively, as shown in Table 12.8.
The highest importance is indica ted by the value 1 and the lowest by 7. The highest weight
was put on sea motion and vibration, which are both typical characteristics of the
workplace onboard.
A Danish study by Hansen and Vinter (2004) shows that almost 50% of occupational
accidents are related to work on deck (Table 12.9). Other less critical activities are walking
from one place to another on the ship and work in the engine room. The authors report
relative accident rates for specific activities within these areas.
On the basis of their findings, Hansen and Vinter have pinpointed the following
improvement areas:
. Conditions for walking and climbing on decks, floors, ladders and stairs
. Access between ship and shore
. Risk assessment of mooring equipment
. Lashing and unlashing of cargo
. Access and arrangement in store rooms
. Wheelhouses: sufficient hand les and avoidance of sharp edges
Ta b l e 1 2 . 8 . Accide nt-ind ucin g factors
Factor At work Off duty
Noise 2.5 3
Vibration 4 1
Inadequate illumination 6 7
Inadequate climate 2.5 4
Air pollution 5 6
Sea motion 1 2
Other 7 5
Source: Iverga
˚
rd et al. (1978).
12 .4 ACCIDE N T SI TUAT ION 347
. Easy access to frequently used controls on deck and in engine room
. Operation of lifeboats and rescue boats
12.5 JOB-RELATED PROBLEMS
1 2.5. 1 The Ship as a 24 -H our Community
Both in studies of maritime accidents and work-related problems onboard, reference is
often made to the fact that the ship and its total crew function as a ‘24-hour community’.
Both work and free hours are spen t on the ship. The ch aracteristics of the ship community
can be summarized as follows:
. Closeness
. Together both on duty and on free watch
. May lead to depression and paranoia in extreme cases
. Destroys informal communication patterns
. Watch hours
. Night work
. Irregular work periods (disrupted in port)
. Sleep deprivation
. Effect of changing time zones
. Fatigue
. Inadequate organization of work
. Period s of idlene ss
Ta b l e 1 2 . 9. Work i ng s ituat i ons at t i me of accid e nt: ships in t he Danis h I nternat i onal Re gist ry (D IS ),
19 93 ^9 7
Working situation Accidents without
permanent disability
(%)
Accidents with
permanent disability
(%)
Fatal accident
(%)
Work on deck: cargo handling,
maintenance
44.9 46.9 46.0
Work in engine room: routine
operations, stores,
maintenance
16.7 17.7 0
Service function: catering,
work in galley
15.9 3.8 0
Walking from one place
to another
10.4 21.1 14
Other functions: drills,
accidents, violence
12.1 10.5 30
Total 100 100 100
Source: adapted from Hansen and Vinter (2004).
348 CHAPTER 12 OC CUPATIONAL SA FETY
. Lack of physical exercise
. Irregular eating hours/unhealthy food
12 .5.2 Stress
It is often pointed out that there are a number of stressing factors related to work
onboard. One should, however, be careful to make a clear distinction between the different
forms of stress:
1. Physical:
. Temperat ure (hot/cold)
. Climate, level of humidity
. Noise, vibration
. Inadequate illumination
. Weather, sea motion
2. Physiological:
. Result of fatigue
. Inadequate rest between watches
. Sleep loss, being woken unexpectedly
. Irregular and unpredictable working hours
. Irregular eating hours
. Drugs
3. Psychological:
. Milder forms of mental disorders
. Subjective experience of inability to cope with job
. Other job-related factors such as separation from family
. Bad social and interpersonal relations
. Unpredictable change in the industry (uncertainty)
It has also been pointed out that the strength and duration of stressors are vital factors
when assessing their seriousness. The different stre ssors should also be seen in relation to
each other. The cumu lative effect might be greater than the sum of the individual effects
indicate. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that individuals might show considerable
variation in ability to cope wi th stress.
Table 12.10 gives a summary of the findings from an Australian study (Parker et al.,
1998) with respect to the specific stress of the industry. Environmental hardships such as
heat, humidi ty and noise shows a greater reporting among engineers and crew. The relative
reporting frequency is 15.4%. This kind of stress is suspected to contribute to fatigue,
neurotic syndromes, arterial hypertension, and gastric and duodenal ulcers.
Extreme weather is given less concern compared to the environmental factors above.
Only 7.1% reported this factor to be a problem. There were no significant variations
between the occupational groups. Prolonged exposure to extreme weather is suspected to
contribute to physical and mental fatigue, low-quality sleep and sore joints.
12 . 5 JOB - REL AT ED PROBL E MS 349
Separation from home is seen as an important stress factor by all crew groups. Missing
the family and lack of contact during periods of illness at home are both typical situations
which are also known from the offshore industry. The problem has been somewhat
reduced during recent years through the introduction of longer off-duty periods ashore.
The most constructive way to counter this problem is to let family members visit the ship
for shorter or longer periods . This has become quite common in the United Kingdom and
New Zealand.
12.5.3 Organizational Aspects
Keltner (1995) relates the stress of seafarers to various factors of the work organization.
Parker et al. (1998) have studied the effect of organizationa l factors in a health perspect ive.
We shall here give only a brief summary of the factors that may influence the performance
of crew members:
1. The job itself:
. A heavy workload with frequent deadlines
. Excessive responsibilities without powers to meet such responsibilities
. Limited recourse to correct such problems without endangering their career
2. Management role:
. Conflicting job requirements
. Insufficient feedback about their work efficiency
. Ignorance of their personal needs
. At times uncaring and exploitative
. Adopting negative roles
. Uninformed about the work conditions
3. Social factors:
. Conflicts
. Lack of social support
. Coping with politics
Ta b l e 1 2 . 1 0 . Industry-specific sources of occupational stress for whole group and by category: percentage
reported by mean value
Factor Seafarers Pilots Masters/Mates Engineers Crew
Hardships at sea 15.4 10.5 12.5 17.8 15.7
Weather 7.1 6.2 7.3 7.1 7.1
Missing home 13.4 11.8 13.4 13.3 13.4
Broken rest 12.6 10.2 12.7 14.2 11.8
Long hours 12.1 10.2 12.4 12.3 11.8
Industry change 76.5 77.8 71 75.1 82.2
Source: Parker et al. (1998).
350 CHAPTER 12 OCCU PATIONAL SAFETY
4. Career and achieve ment:
. Opportunities for personal development
. Promotion prospects
. Threat of redundancy and early retirement
5. Organization:
. Lack of information
. Lack of loyalty both ways
. Perceived distance to the land organization
. Little opportunity for input into administrative decisions which affect their work
situation
. Uncertaint ies about their future status in the organization
6. Home–work interface
. Worry about family
. Lack of support from home
. Absence of stability in home life
Parker et al. (1998) studied these sources of pressure at work. The results of the
investigation are summarized in Table 12.11. It appears that seafarers have a higher score
on all sources compared to the normative group. The most pronounced difference was
found on:
. Relationships with others, and
. Home–work interface
The relationship problem is mainly attributed to the fact that the seafarers work and
live together with the same people for long periods. A land job on the other hand means
that the individual has a daily shift between the professional and private sphere. The
home–work interface problem has alrea dy been commented upon and involves being away
from family and friends.
Ta b l e 1 2 . 11. Sources of pressure at work for normative groups, the entire maritime sample and four
occupati onal g rou ps
Normative
group
Seafarers Pilots Masters/Mates Engineers Crew
The job itself 30.2 32.8 27.3 33.0 33.2 31.3
Management 35.5 36.7 29.9 38.2 37.4 35.6
Social factors 30.3 34.5 25.8 36.3 34.6 33.7
Career 28.4 29.8 25.9 30.4 30.0 29.5
Organization 38.9 40.0 28.8 40.6 40.8 39.5
Home–work 30.9 33.8 31.1 33.8 32.8 34.3
Source: Parker et al. (1998).
12 . 5 JOB - REL AT ED PROBL E MS 351
An interesting fact was that there were no significant differences among the occupational
groups on ‘Career and achievement’. This was taken as an indication of the general lack
of job security due to the ongoing deregulation of the Australian maritime industry.
On the other job-related factors, the Masters/Mates group reported the highest scores
among the occupational groups. The pilots generally reported lower scores on all aspects
of pressure from sources at work.
1 2.5.4 Sources of Job Satisfaction
Parker et al. (1998) identified elements under sources of job satisfaction:
1. Achievement value and growth:
. Perception of their current scope for advancement – career opportunities
. Value of your efforts
. Development and growth in the job, utilization of skill level of employees
2. The job itself:
. Satisfaction experienced with the type and scope of job
. Level of security, kind and amount of work
3. Organ ization design and structure:
. Satisfaction with communication of information around the organiz ation,
implementation of change
. Conflict resolution
4. Organ izational process:
. Satisfaction with internal processes within an organization
. Processes for promotion, motivation in the job
. Style of supervision, involvement in decision-making
. Amount of freedom and flexibility in the job
5. Personal relationships:
. Interpersonal contact within an organiz ation – relationships with others at work
. Identification with the public image of the organization
. Organizational climate
6. Overall job satisfaction – ‘measures the satisfaction with the job as a whole – personal
and organizational issues.’
The reported scores on job satisfaction are shown in Table 12.12. On average, seafarers
reported lower overall job satisfa ction than the reference group (normative group).
The seafarers reported the same levels of satisfaction with ‘Achievement, value and
growth’ as the normative group. For seafarers as a group the most satisfying factor was
the job itself.
It is also interesting to observe that all occupational groups onboard reported lower
levels of satisfaction with the ‘Personal relationships’ and that the group values showed no
significant differences.
352 CHAPTER 12 OCCU PATIONAL SAFETY
1 2.5.5 Health Survey
The investigation of job-related factors of Australian seafarers (Parker et al., 1998)
referenced in the previous section was ultimately focused on their health situation. The
self-reported health data are shown in Figure 12.3. The investigation sho wed that there
were a number of physical and mental health problems among seafarers consistent with
Australian population data. Only one exception was found, namely that of blood pressure
which was slightly higher.
Ta b l e 1 2 .1 2 . Sources of job satisfaction for normative groups, the entire maritime sample and four
occupati onal g rou ps
Factor Normative
group
Seafarers Pilots Masters/
Mates
Engineers Crew
Achievement, growth 21.3 21.6 22.9 22.6 22.8 19.9
Job itself 16.3 15.1 16.8 15.7 15.7 14.4
Organization design 16.4 16.1 19.6 16.6 16.4 15.7
Organization process 15.3 14.8 18.8 15.5 15.9 13.8
Personal relations 11.6 10.6 12.6 10.7 10.7 10.5
Overall satisfaction 82.1 77.8 22.8 19.7 19.7 18.5
Source: Parker et al. (1998).
Figure 12.3. Self-reported medical conditions for occupational groups onboard. (Source: Parker
et al.,1998.)
12 . 5 JOB - REL AT ED PROBL E MS 353
Some differences were identified between the occupational groups, namely:
. Engineers, and to a lesser degree crew, reported a higher incidence of
auditory problems.
. Pilots displayed more cardiovascular risk factors.
1 2.5.6 Work Schedu l e and Sleep Pat terns
Apart from the factors already discussed, the fatigue of the crew is suspected to be related
to the watc h system practised onboard. The typical system for bridge personnel is:
4 hours on watch
8 hours off
4 hours on
8 hours off
This is possible to practise with three mates (or deck officers). Apart from this, the
schedule is disrupted when the vessel enters the harbour and starts cargo handling or other
tasks. These negative effects are somewhat limited by the restriction on overtime working
given by working regulations. However, it has been shown by Sanquist et al. (1995) that
watchstanders on the 04–08 and 00–04 watch had to split their sleep into two periods (see
Table 12.13). It is also interesting to note that the total sleep for watchstanders is less than
for dayworking personnel. The author further pointed out that research has shown that
fragmented sleep leads both to reduced alertness and impaired performance on tests of
perceptual monitoring (lookout and radar watch). Other studies emphasize the quality
of sleep: sleep onset before midnight is best; second comes sleep after midnight; and the
lowest quality is dayti me sleep.
Fletcher et al. (1988) suggested an alternative watch schedule in order to get a single,
uninterupted sleep period. The schedule is outlined in Figure 12.4. Experiments showed
that sleep quality and duration increased for the first and third officers. The first officer
Ta b l e 1 2 . 1 3 . Average sleep durations for watchstanders and dayworkers aboard two US flag ships
Watch period Sleep 1 (hours) Sleep 2 (hours) Total sleep (hours)
Ship A 00–04 3:32 2:37 6:11
04–08 5:13 1:48 5:24
08–12 5:37 — 5:37
Dayworkers 6:19 — 6:19
Ship B 00–04 3:32 4:21 7:41
04–08 4:30 1:25 5:55
08–12 5:30 0:50 6:18
Dayworkers 7:04 1:51 7:35
354 CHAPTER 12 OCCU PATIONAL SAFETY
would star t his long rest at 19 hours whereas the third officer would start at 24 hours.
Obviously the improvement for the second officer is less due to the fact that his period
started at 10 hours (in the middle of the day). Incidentall y, the first officer still did not like
the system anyway, primarily due to the fact that he had sailed for many years and was not
motivated by changing his routine.
12.6 WORKCONDITIONS AND FLAG STANDARD
Despite the fact that there is a general acceptance that flags of convenience (FOC) are
associated with substandard shipping and degradation of work conditions, there has been
a steady growth in flagging out. Alderton and Winchester (2001) have studied the effect
of flag standard on working conditions. We will here give a brief summary of their
investigation. The quality or standard of the flags was assessed on the basis of a broad set
of criteria and was grouped as shown in Table 12.14.
Table 12.15 shows a clear correlation between flag standard and work load. The
assessment of whether working time is too long has twice as high a response percentage
(31%) for low compared to high standard (14%). The same patte rn can be found for the
evaluation of rest and leave (Table 12.16). For the two lowest standards rough ly 25% of
the respondents find the conditions inadequate.
Stress seems to be a widespread problem onboard but is especially common on the
most substandard ships as 37% report too high a level (Table 12.17). The general working
conditions measured by four different criteria as shown in Table 12.18 confirm the same
message. Personnel on low standard vessels report inadequate conditions twice as often as
on high standard vessels.
Ta b l e 1 2 . 1 4 . Ranking of flag standard
Flag standard Characterization
High Traditional maritime nations
Centrally operated second registers
Medium high Semi-autonomous second registers
Medium Established open registers (seeking EU membership)
National registers
Medium low New open registers
Low New entrants to the open register markets
Source: Alderton and Winchester (2001).
Figure 12.4. Alternative watch schedule for bridge officers. (Source: Fletcher et al.,1988.)
12 .6 W ORK CONDI T IONS AND F L AG S TA NDARD 355