Rescue Boat Accidents

[Dosedmonkey]

I am so fed up of seeing Rescue Boat accidents caused by people not securing the painter properly (tense), or removing the painter before the davit line.







I can't find the video from the well known cruise ship, will have to find it on my hardrive and uploadit one day.

I once read somewhere more people die in lifeboat drills then have been saved by them. Some times you have to wonder if their right.

[alistairuk]

I can't find the video from the well known cruise ship, will have to find it on my hardrive and uploadit one day.

That one was a monumental cock-up with lucky results.

I once read somewhere more people die in lifeboat drills then have been saved by them. Some times you have to wonder if their right.

Probably, although I note in all the above cases they were launching the boat while making way - something I have only done once and it certainly wasn't for "training". I would argue that launching any boat while the ship is underway for "training" should be avoided - unless everyone participating is 100% sure of what they are doing and have practiced doing it fully while the ship was alongside in a nice sheltered harbour.

Another advantage of doing it alongside is you can go slowly and take time to explain to everyone what they should be doing - no matter how many times you tell someone to do something - unless they've actually done it several times you can guarantee they will cock it up (I could give several examples).

Aside from people "forgetting" in the rush to do it quickly, sometimes getting them back onboard is just as dangerous especially in unsheltered waters even with what looks like very little swell / waves from the bridge of the ship!

[Lewis]

If your on a busy ro pax you not got much choice

[GuinnessMan]

If your on a busy ro pax you not got much choice

Then that's something the management on board and ashore will need to look into as you cannot expect or really allow this sort of drill to be done if folks don't know what they're doing. Imagine if it has to be done for real, when a passie has fallen over? That's the sort of day, particularly if the weather is bad, that you need to be spot on as you won't have a massive length of time to get over there and pull them out.

[alistairuk]

If your on a busy ro pax you not got much choice

Of course you have a choice - although if you're on a busy ro-ro one would assume your schedule would be so tight that you wouldn't be able to slow down to do it when underway.

[Steve]

Probably, although I note in all the above cases they were launching the boat while making way - something I have only done once and it certainly wasn't for "training". I would argue that launching any boat while the ship is underway for "training" should be avoided - unless everyone participating is 100% sure of what they are doing and have practiced doing it fully while the ship was alongside in a nice sheltered harbour.

We launch our rescue boats underway, objective speed 10 knots for launch, quite like doing it into a swept lee (i.e. the ship in a moderate turn) if the boat is aft. We do however practice often. Man overboard drills conducted at sea with a dummy going for a swim at least every month. Standard time from alert to recovery is something like 7 minutes. Haven't had any accidents that I have heard of for a while, and the last one I know of was an equipment failure during a launch when the ship was tied up (MAIB report refers).

[thebrookster]

Or you could do it the way my company currently does it, you never lower the boat whilst underway unless it is a clear emergency, and even when anchored we NEVER allow anyone to actually go down in the FRB for practice, we lower the boat empty and send the guys down the accommodation ladder to a service boat, who then transfers them into the FRB.

Apparently this is for safety, god help us if we ever actually need to use the darn boat, cause most of our ships will not have anyone on board who actually knows what they are doing!!

[Midge]

I have been thinking about this, these are my thoughts, you are welcome to disagree, not being at sea myself I don't have all the knowledge and facts you have so please allow for that Though I do have some knowledge of how the global economy works when it comes to money.

So the questions are what stops it from being done properly? Is it lack of training? If so why isn't that training done? Is it cost? Is it time? Is it bad maintenance?

Who benefits if its not done and cost is a factor? The shareholders, how much is that benefit worth? Pennies I would expect spread over the industry and those that use it and us the consumers of goods. Probably one less cornflake or pea on a plate, one less second of central heating oil, or fuel in your car. For shareholders a few pence on their dividends. Schedules are kept to time.

Who loses out if the money is not spent or time not spent? The crew, the people needing the rescue, the passengers. For other issues like pollution everyone, and the environment.
If passengers were aware that their safety was possibly compromised by a few pence on their fare or getting to their destination 15 mins later, would they have a different view if they knew of the consequences of a less well or untrained crew or unserviceable equipment? I think they would.

Could schedules be printed allowing for the extra time it takes to do this training routinely, I presume there are services which are less popular and by choosing those to train on less would be effected.

Would shareholders and boards be more inclined to ensure crews were adequately trained if the penalties to the company were higher? I doubt shareholders would take too kindly to their dividends not being awarded or the shares becoming worthless because of bad publicity, a major accident, and I'm thinking about a pollution incident as well as rescue boats on a ship for a large number of passengers, to devalue shares that much.
Companies could use advertising to highlight safety on their ships, make passengers feel safer, more inclined to choose one company over another possibly.

Unions of course could highlight where safety is an issue more in the press, or offer awards for 'safe companies'. Companies, shareholders would not like bad press if it effects their income and profits
Companies spend a great deal of money advertising, a bad headline in a leading newspaper cost a lot to counter. Agencies who carry out inspections could increase fines for lack of compliance and publish it to a wider audience.

How do you avoid crews not doing the drills but saying they have? Independent inspection body to witness that its done on a regular basis. Whistle blowing culture embraced and highlighted by companies that they value it.

If you make it more expensive for companies not to do things properly, they would be more inclined to do it. If by doing it and promoting what a great safe company they are it improves their image and their business.
After all who wants to place their cargo on a ship that's more likely to lose it or damage it, disrupting their business and customers. Who wants to be a passenger on a ship that doesn't care about safety and should something happen that is out of their control (weather, collision) mean that not all that could be saved are.

Does the RFA do their drills underway because money is less of a factor, (no shareholders just taxpayers the public like to think their military is well cared for) and because training is seen to be more important because of their military ties/background and culture?

It could be done globally if everyone placed a higher value on safety, backed with a high monetary sanction to hit shareholders where it hurts when they fail to provide funds and and a culture where safety is high up on the list and adhered to by all.
So I'm happy to give up a few more cornflakes and peas on my plate, take fifteen mins more to get to my destination on a ferry, fill up my car and heating oil earlier if it means you lot out there get the training you need to be safe, and keep our environment as clean as it should be.

[Steve]

Does the RFA do their drills underway because money is less of a factor, (no shareholders just taxpayers the public like to think their military is well cared for) and because training is seen to be more important because of their military ties/background and culture?

Note that I didn't mention RFA procedures as a model for other organisations to follow - that would be unrealistic for a variety of reasons - but as an indication of a direction that can be taken if you are willing.

The naval ethos is to conduct training in as realistic a manner as can be reasonably and safely done. Man overboard events generally occur at sea in non-ideal conditions, and therefore training should take place at sea in non-ideal conditions. However, RFAs have vastly more time for training than any commercial ship. You could look into FOST for more information on that.

[Clanky]

WOW, lots of very good questions, I will try to tackle them one by one.

I have been thinking about this, these are my thoughts, you are welcome to disagree, not being at sea myself I don't have all the knowledge and facts you have so please allow for that Though I do have some knowledge of how the global economy works when it comes to money.

So the questions are what stops it from being done properly? Is it lack of training? If so why isn't that training done? Is it cost? Is it time? Is it bad maintenance?

A little bit of everything. Standards are slipping slowly, when I first went to sea ships had bigger crews, senior officers were more experienced with more sea time and cadetships were longer.

The facts of modern shipping are that those coming into the industry have not had the same amount of training as they previously had, those in senior positions at sea do not always have the same amount of sea time as would have previously been normal and many of these have initially been trained in countries where the standards were (at that time anyway) not particularly high. This means that those who have come through shorter cadetships do not always benefit as muh from the knowledge and experience of there senior colleagues as newly qualified officers used to.

There are all sorts of pressures on training, some of it is time related especially on busy ships were the charterers want the ship to operate 24/7, some of it is health and safety related were previous accidents have led to calls for boats to be lowered empty rather than with crew inside, which, while it means that training is safer does not give people the required knowledge.

Who benefits if its not done and cost is a factor? The shareholders, how much is that benefit worth? Pennies I would expect spread over the industry and those that use it and us the consumers of goods. Probably one less cornflake or pea on a plate, one less second of central heating oil, or fuel in your car. For shareholders a few pence on their dividends. Schedules are kept to time.

Who loses out if the money is not spent or time not spent? The crew, the people needing the rescue, the passengers. For other issues like pollution everyone, and the environment.
If passengers were aware that their safety was possibly compromised by a few pence on their fare or getting to their destination 15 mins later, would they have a different view if they knew of the consequences of a less well or untrained crew or unserviceable equipment? I think they would.

In the old days when shipping companies owned and operated their own ships what you have just said above was fairly obvious to all concerned, in the modern shipping industry ships are generally chartered by one company whose only interest is to carry the cargo and the charterers tend to view any legal requirements such as crew training as something which will hamper the cargo carrying efficiency of the vessel and they often try to push for costs of any such training to be borne by owners, who then try to push back and in the midst of this there is usually no consensus on what should actually be done.

I previously worked for a company which managed cruise ships, in the immediate aftermath of the Costa Concordia, we proposed moving the passenger drill from the first morning of the cruise to pre-departure, even so soon after Concordia the word came back from the owners that this was absolutely not going to happen as they felt it would have an impact on bar sales. It was only hen the passenger services association made it compulsory that they caved and then instructed us to do what we had suggested.

Could schedules be printed allowing for the extra time it takes to do this training routinely, I presume there are services which are less popular and by choosing those to train on less would be effected.

Yes, so long as everyone sits down with the view that this MUST be done and that the solution is to find the best way to do it.

Would shareholders and boards be more inclined to ensure crews were adequately trained if the penalties to the company were higher? I doubt shareholders would take too kindly to their dividends not being awarded or the shares becoming worthless because of bad publicity, a major accident, and I'm thinking about a pollution incident as well as rescue boats on a ship for a large number of passengers, to devalue shares that much.
Companies could use advertising to highlight safety on their ships, make passengers feel safer, more inclined to choose one company over another possibly.

This does happen to some extent, but not enough. Many companies do see the financial benefit of proper training, but this tends to be more in th high cost sectors of the industry such as passenger and offshore.

Unions of course could highlight where safety is an issue more in the press, or offer awards for 'safe companies'. Companies, shareholders would not like bad press if it effects their income and profits
Companies spend a great deal of money advertising, a bad headline in a leading newspaper cost a lot to counter. Agencies who carry out inspections could increase fines for lack of compliance and publish it to a wider audience.

The unions (particularly the UK unions) are pretty toothless and unless passengers are involved the press doesn't give a flying fig about the safety of seafarers, you only have to look at the news reports when ships sink, they usually spend about 5 minutes talking about the potantial dangers to seabirds and then mention in passing that a few sailors died.

How do you avoid crews not doing the drills but saying they have? Independent inspection body to witness that its done on a regular basis. Whistle blowing culture embraced and highlighted by companies that they value it.

The truth is that it is very difficult to avoid this, the shipping industry is very hierarchal and by nature sailors tend to bow to authority, so if the captain decides not to cary out drills or only pays lip service to drills it is not in a seafarers nature to second guess him or her. The other issue is that drills usually mean longer working hours for the crew so it is very easy to persuade people that not doing drills is benefiting them rather than putting their lives at risk.

In the particular instance of rescue boat drills the sad fact is that even the statutory requirement for drills is not enough IMHO to ensure that people are competent in launching them.

If you make it more expensive for companies not to do things properly, they would be more inclined to do it. If by doing it and promoting what a great safe company they are it improves their image and their business.

After all who wants to place their cargo on a ship that's more likely to lose it or damage it, disrupting their business and customers. Who wants to be a passenger on a ship that doesn't care about safety and should something happen that is out of their control (weather, collision) mean that not all that could be saved are.

Ever since the days of insured cargoes, shippers have traditionally been the ones who have been pushing for lower costs at any price and compromising on safety has traditionally been the way that costs have been saved. As I mentioned above things are changing in areas like passenger ships, the offshore industry and tankers where the charterers are pushing for higher standards as these are all very high profile sectors of the industry.

Does the RFA do their drills underway because money is less of a factor, (no shareholders just taxpayers the public like to think their military is well cared for) and because training is seen to be more important because of their military ties/background and culture?

It is very much the military culture which exists in the UK, the RFA exists to do a specific job for the MoD and the MoD push to ensure that they are capable of doing it so they view training as essential, the RFA will generally carry out way more than the statutory requirements in terms of drills and training, because of this the knowledge is there which means that when they do train everyone knows what they are doing.

It could be done globally if everyone placed a higher value on safety, backed with a high monetary sanction to hit shareholders where it hurts when they fail to provide funds and and a culture where safety is high up on the list and adhered to by all.
So I'm happy to give up a few more cornflakes and peas on my plate, take fifteen mins more to get to my destination on a ferry, fill up my car and heating oil earlier if it means you lot out there get the training you need to be safe, and keep our environment as clean as it should be.

Sadly not everyone sees it that way, how many people do you know who, when travelling, simply go for the lowest possible price regardless of the safety record of the company in the same way that people want there clothes as cheap as possible regardless of how many small children it took to sew them or their meat as cheap a possible regardless of the conditions of the animals which had a fairly significant role to play in its production?

[Steve]

Would anyone with experience of the offshore sector like to comment on rescue boat drills there? Presumably on standby boats and the other safety vessels there are frequent drills in a variety of conditions? Night launches etc?

[Midge]

Thank you Steve and Clanky, sorts things out for me. So charterers are bad guys too, I forgot about them. Seems to me a bit too much pressure is applied.
ref cost to passengers, good advertising can counter a lot of that though, it would be pence not pounds overall surely? Most people would not notice that but I see the point.
There are videos on youtube that passengers have taken of coastguards practicing drills, and actual rescues they seem to get very excited by it, seem to value it, lots of people go to RNLI open days just to see it being done.
I doubt they mind being held up a few minutes for it. The QM2 dropping off a sat phone and stuff to the rower in the Atlantic the other day was used well, no doubt it cost them a bit of fuel and time, but it was sold to the passengers as how lucky they were to have the opportunity! Gave the crew a chance to test the system winners all around.

How about insurers give a larger reduction on premiums for safer ships /companies which have better safety training/ safety record pushing charterers shipping companies to improve. Insurance is pretty global if their payouts for losses were less because of fewer accidents. Could be done if there were minimum global statutory payouts for accidents of all types. Insurance comps would want to minimise that risk and encourage a safer industry. As you point out the higher profile an industry is the more inclined they are to try and perform better, shows the power of the press/advertising too.

Governments global bodies responsible need to raise the statutory requirements to ensure that adequate training is done. After all anyone injured and unable to work would need care maybe lifelong there is a huge cost to that. The same goes for the environmental damage, the public live with the consequences and the cost.

Maybe when cadets are doing their dissertations for Hons degrees they can have a go at some of this?
Unions are only as strong as their members though. Members are the union, join a union and force the issue more, highlight it, advertise it, press the agencies responsible for statutory requirements. Get all unions together to speak as one?
I see the hierarchical nature of shipping doesn't help. So the top need to lead and encourage those below to question and ask and must value those that do so.
Though in order to do that, they need the co-operation of their companies to listen and support them in making adequate provision, time, and the resources for it to be carried out as and when then, and to also value and understand that the master is the one who knows best how to do it.
Lastly improve training for cadets so that it works it way back up again.
Wouldn't it be great if things changed ! Anyway must go, lots to do its been interesting thank you.

[bobofinga]

Would anyone with experience of the offshore sector like to comment on rescue boat drills there? Presumably on standby boats and the other safety vessels there are frequent drills in a variety of conditions? Night launches etc?

It totally depends on the contract. I have been on standby vessels on contract to BP who have to do at least 1 MOB per day , launching in force 6/7.

They have a flow chart on the bridge with the specific sea height/wind speed and if launching is Safe/Hazardous etc.

But , launching whilst underway is pretty much routine on the standby vessels I have been on yes.

Night Launches tend to be a 'If situation allows' sort of thing... but more often than not you would only launch at night in an emergency.

[Midge]

It totally depends on the contract. I have been on standby vessels on contract to BP who have to do at least 1 MOB per day , launching in force 6/7.

They have a flow chart on the bridge with the specific sea height/wind speed and if launching is Safe/Hazardous etc.

But , launching whilst underway is pretty much routine on the standby vessels I have been on yes.

Night Launches tend to be a 'If situation allows' sort of thing... but more often than not you would only launch at night in an emergency.

So wealthy sections of the industry spend the money then. So those doing their training in those sectors, are the people with the best skills, or the most practiced ones at least, aside from the military. Though its a more dangerous sector to work in due to location and what they do I presume.
I have learnt lots today!

[Clanky]

It's not just about wealthy sections of the industry, it has a lot to do with the profile of certain parts of the industry.

The oil majors who charter tankers and offshore vessels are very much aware of the fact that there is the potential for major accidents involving multiple deaths such as piper alpha or major pollution incidents such as deepwater horizon / Braer / Exxon Valdez / others ad nauseum, which not only cost them huge amounts of money, but hit their public image very badly.

The passenger shipping sector has been slowly waking up to the fact for years that they cannot afford a major disaster, sadly the fact that no-one from Costa Crucieres senior management went to jail and the fact that the cruise market didn't suffer a major slump post Concordia may well mean that many chief execs start wondering how much they can save on their safety / training budgets.