CHIRP Ports and Harbours Feedback summer 2023

An independent and confidential

MARITIME FEEDBACK reporting system for the Maritime industry

Issue 01 PORTS AND HARBOURS Summer 2023

SUBMIT A REPORT ONLINE

CHIRP always protects the identity of our reporters. Reports can be submitted easily through All personal details are deleted from our system once our encrypted online form a report is completed. www.chirp.co.uk

Navigating Safety within Ports and Harbours Adam Parnell Director (Maritime)

A s advocates of maritime safety, we are well aware of the unique challenges faced within ports and harbours. Congested waterways, filled with vessels of all shapes and sizes, navigating in close quarters with limited manoeuvrability, and operating within strict time constraints present an intricate safety puzzle. However, within these challenges also lie tremendous opportunities. For years, ports have served as hubs for information exchange, fostering collaboration and knowledge-sharing among seafarers, with a particular emphasis on safety. After all, as the age-old cliché goes, it’s better to learn from the experiences of others since we don’t live long enough to have them all ourselves! And that’s precisely why we’re here. Celebrating our 20th anniversary, CHIRP has been an active participant in these crucial conversations. Whether it’s engaging with individual continuous improvement in safety measures across mariners through our confidential incident reporting the industry. program or disseminating valuable insights via our Lastly, these newsletters provide an evidence base FEEDBACK newsletter series, CHIRP has been for decision-making bodies by highlighting recurrent dedicated to enhancing maritime safety. And now, we themes and addressing the underlying causes of are thrilled to announce the launch of a new series of incidents. By removing information that identifies newsletters specifically tailored to ports and harbours individuals, organizations, or specific locations, we shift for three specific reasons. Firstly, we aim to raise the focus from the “who” to the “what” and “why” of safety awareness among individuals by providing each incident, enabling us to identify key patterns and them with vital education and knowledge. We believe develop effective preventive measures. that education is empowerment when it comes to We sincerely hope that you find this new series maritime safety. engaging, interesting, and, most importantly, helpful Secondly, we strive to create a platform for in your daily operations. Your feedback is invaluable organizations to share their knowledge and best to us, so please don’t hesitate to share your thoughts practices without compromising their commercial or by contacting us at mail@chirp.co.uk or through your reputational interests. By encouraging the exchange incident reports. Together, we can continue to make of valuable insights, we hope to foster a culture of ports and harbours safer for everyone involved.

Please note all reports received by CHIRP are accepted in good faith. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of any editorials, analyses and comments that are published in FEEDBACK, please remember that CHIRP does not possess any executive authority.

M1877 secured to the quay wall. At low tide this generated a significant risk of falling from height and onto the steel deck

Fall from vertical quayside of the vessel and/or into cold water. Design (latent factor) – Vertical ladders are exposed

ladder has near-fatal to the elements and prone to damage by vessels berthed alongside. There is no fall protection inherent within the

consequences design and unless regularly maintained they are prone to rusting and marine growth Fit for duty – Alcohol increases the likelihood of an incident occurring and CHIRP recommends that Safety Management System (SMS) risk assessments include alcohol/intoxication as a factor when appropriate, particularly in cases where access arrangements include a climb up and down vertical ladders.

Local practices – CHIRP acknowledges that high tidal ranges preclude the use of gangways, and that many ports lack the space, water, and money to install pontoon berths, so must therefore rely on the use of vertical ladders as the safest means of access. Is there a shared understanding between the port authority and the vessels regarding who is responsible for providing the means of safe access? This can vary by country and regulatory area. Does your vessel adhere to the local regulations?

Culture – To be effective, there must be a shared safety culture between vessels and port authorities, particularly where regulations on the provision of a safe means of access can be interpreted differently by the port authority and a vessel’s Master. Port safety forums are one way of developing this shared safety culture with everyone working to a shared understanding of risks and their control measures.

Capability – Do ports have the correct equipment to facilitate recovery of a casualty from a vessel at low tide, and is this operation regularly practised?

CHIRP Comment Initial Report The Master is responsible for ensuring a safe means of A fisher returned to their vessel with a guest in the late access to their vessel. This can be difficult, especially for evening after they had met ashore. Both had drunk alcohol. small vessels that lack the space on board to carry or rig It was low tide, and the vessel was approximately 6m below a gangway, or where the tidal range would make the the quay edge due to the tidal range in that port. gangway too steep to safely use. In these cases, Masters As they climbed down the vertical quayside ladder, consider that they have no option but to use the vertical the guest fell off the ladder and hit the vessel’s hull before ladders as the only means of access or request a more falling, injured, into the water. The sea temperature was suitable berth. By contrast, many port authorities view the approximately 10° C (50° F). vertical quayside ladders as ‘self-rescue’ equipment for The fisher was unable to recover the person in the water anyone who falls into the water. They do not consider them and entered the water himself in an attempt to keep the as a safe means of access onto vessels, especially those guest from drowning. that lie some distance below the quay edge at low tide. The A crew member from another fishing vessel moored rules that determine whether it is the port authority or the nearby heard the commotion and managed to recover the master that is responsible for providing safe access onto injured person and the crew member from the water back vessels vary by country and are not always clear. CHIRP onto the deck of the fishing vessel. Due to the effects of the urges regulators in those jurisdictions to reduce the scope cold water and the injuries, the guest was unresponsive and for different interpretations wherever possible. not breathing. The need to recover casualties from vessels at low tide The port authority’s security team called an ambulance is reasonably foreseeable, so ports are strongly encouraged and commenced CPR on the casualty until the emergency to conduct thorough risk assessments to deal with this services arrived, but it took over an hour to lift them from the scenario and develop an emergency recovery plan. This vessel and up the 6m to the quayside and into the ambulance might require the purchase of specialist equipment or the where they made a full recovery within a few days. nomination of a suitable ‘casualty recovery’ berth. Due to the range of the tide the vessel did not put out Ports and vessels’ masters are also encouraged to ensure a gangway and instead relied on the vertical metal ladder that visiting crews are aware of the local arrangements for

summoning emergency assistance and can describe their of the forward springs and one headline to part. The master location to the emergency services when doing so. contacted the engine room and ordered the main engine to be made ready as soon as possible. They then called the port Key Issues relating to this report control and requested tug assistance, as did the vessel astern. Design (latent factor) – Vertical ladders are exposed to The vessel was now attached to the dock with just 2 the elements and prone to damage by vessels berthed headlines and one fore spring, and as it continued to swing alongside. There is no fall protection inherent within the it hit a berthed bunker barge and a railway bridge, sustaining design and unless regularly maintained they are prone to damage to the starboard side amidships as well as on the rusting and marine growth starboard quarter. A piece of cargo was also discovered to be hanging over the starboard side. The Master called port Fit for duty – Alcohol increases the likelihood of an control via VHF to advise that the vessel had contacted incident occurring and CHIRP recommends that Safety the railway bridge and requested them to inform the rail Management System (SMS) risk assessments include authorities. He also informed the local agent and the vessel’s alcohol/intoxication as a factor when appropriate, technical superintendent of what had happened. particularly in cases where access arrangements include a climb up and down vertical ladders. While not an exact science, it is possible Local practices – CHIRP acknowledges that high tidal to estimate the likely forces generated by ranges preclude the use of gangways, and that many ports high winds on a high-sided vessel so long lack the space, water, and money to install pontoon berths, as the windage area is known so must therefore rely on the use of vertical ladders as the safest means of access. Tugs were deployed and the vessel was re-secured to the Is there a shared understanding between the port dock at 0300 hrs. A memorandum of class was subsequently authority and the vessels regarding who is responsible issued due to impact damages to the vessel and cargo. There for providing the means of safe access? This can vary by was some minor damage to the bunker barge and the rail country and regulatory area. Does your vessel adhere to the bridge. An investigation revealed that the mooring bollard local regulations? to which the stern lines of both vessels were attached had been pulled completely out of its foundations due to the wind Culture – To be effective, there must be a shared safety loading on the side of the vessels. It also concluded that the culture between vessels and port authorities, particularly crew could not have prevented the incident. where regulations on the provision of a safe means of access can be interpreted differently by the port authority CHIRP Comment and a vessel’s Master. Port safety forums are one way of Placing all the stern ropes onto one bollard created a single developing this shared safety culture with everyone working point of failure which was aggravated when the second to a shared understanding of risks and their control measures. vessel secured to the same bollard. Either vessel could have identified this latent risk, as could the supervisor of the line- Capability – Do ports have the correct equipment to handling party. It is possible that neither the port authority facilitate recovery of a casualty from a vessel at low tide, and nor the master understood the risk which had been created. is this operation regularly practised? There is no evidence of a discussion regarding the possibility of the vessel moving to an alternative berth, either before or after the strong wind warning was issued, and no additional M1820 lines were put ashore after the warning had been received. Similarly, the vessel could have brought its engine(s) to immediate notice as a prudent contingency measure. Collison with bridge and It is good practice for port authorities who operate tugs to consider having them at immediate notice during periods barge after moorings of forecast bad weather. In this case, they could have been deployed to ‘push on’ or to at least minimise the swing of parted in high winds the vessel as it broke away. The port authority might also have considered temporarily relocating the vessel(s) to a more sheltered part of the harbour or even directing them to Initial Report proceed to sea to safely ride out the poor weather. A heavy-lift vessel was berthed alongside with 3 stern lines While not an exact science, it is possible to estimate the and 2 springs aft, 3 headlines and 2 springs forward. The likely forces generated by high winds on a high-sided vessel three stern lines were all on the same bollard. During the so long as the windage area is known. Many vessels keep a afternoon the port authority issued a strong wind warning ‘ready reckoner’ on the bridge for quick reference, and some and the crew checked that the mooring lines were of the port authorities that regularly berth high-sided vessels have vessel, adding another 3 lines to the same bollard used to similarly developed a guide to assist them in calculating the hold the heavy lift vessel’s three stern ropes. likely ‘pull’ forces that the bollards must accommodate. The At approximately 22:00 the heavy lift ship shook use of auto-tensioners can cause dynamic loading of lines considerably when 50 knot winds gusted through the port. that potentially exceed bollard holding limits so this should The master saw the ship’s 3 stern lines detach from the be considered as well. Bollard holding strength depends on dock, followed by the 2 after springs, allowing the stern to bollard rating, the surface to which it is attached and the swing quickly into the centre of the dock basin, causing one vertical angle of pull from the mooring lines. It is possible to

determine the safe holding capacity of quayside bollards and verifications as we closed on the berth. When I called using nondestructive testing. the port per the pre-arrival checklist, I was informed that a When requesting a berth, large and high-sided vessels large passenger liner had just let go and that I might have are strongly encouraged to include their bollard holding to ‘slow her up’ (referring to my vessel). However, given the requirements in the pre-arrival ship/shore information proximity to the berth, the other boat and the increasingly exchange if they are not already doing so. They should confined waters, it was clear that I would have to lose speed ask if the port has published any environmental limitations quicker than I safely could. So, I had to opt for a rapid turn (including maximum wind speeds) for vessel movement, upwind (to avoid being set onto the nearby lee shore). I berthing/unberthing or cargo handling. continued my turn and completed a 360, and during this time, the passenger liner was clear of the port and the berth Key Issues relating to this report we were aiming for. Our distance from the breakwater was Local Practices: Vessels and port authorities are approximately 3 cables when we started the turn. encouraged to develop and use a windage ‘ready reckoner’ For each port of arrival, we plan two abort positions. to assist in the allocation of berths and the bollards to be We had passed the first, where ‘Standby’ is rung on, the used. Does the port authority periodically test quayside crew called to stations, pitch response is verified, and hand bollards to assess their holding capacity? steering is engaged. We had not yet reached the second abort position (approximately four cables from the first), so a Communication: Do your ship/shore information direct abort was still viable. exchanges include mention of bollard requirements for the Shortly after passing the first abort and confirming current and forecast weather conditions? Do they include the items mentioned, I called the harbour for permission to any requirements to sail from the port if environmental limits continue into the berth. I was given the all-clear whilst being are exceeded? How are changes to the weather forecast advised of a departing cruise ship that might be leaving. The communicated to the deck officers and line-handlers when operator told me I “might want to slow her up a bit”, but it alongside? Would you communicate with the car carrier was now clear to me that I would need to abort the arrival which berthed astern of your vessel and discuss reducing to avoid a close-quarters situation with the cruise vessel, the number of lines secured to the bollard? which was manoeuvring off her berth. Given the proximity of the lee shore to starboard, I elected to turn to port/upwind Culture: Is it an accepted local practice in your port or and gain distance from the shore, together with slackening vessel to put all lines onto one bollard? If so, why? Is this a speed to a minimum. training issue? With the above avoidance measures well underway and having the desired effect, I communicated with the Alerting: Do you feel empowered to question why so many cruise vessel to establish which general direction they or vessel view such questions as good teamwork or as a intended to take upon clearing the harbour to allow me to criticism? Do you alert all the ship’s crew to the expected plan the rest of my manoeuvre and not result in additional strong winds especially the engineers? Alerting is part of unnecessary risk. With them advising a course to the east good teamwork behaviour. initially before turning to the north, I elected to complete a full 360, allowing time and space for the cruise ship to exit Teamwork: Do you feel that your ship operates with a good the immediate harbour area and for me to generally pick up teamwork spirit (good teamwork encourages everyone the standard approach to our berth for arrival. to think and contribute; a “group think” approach means The main hazards were the proximity of the lee shore, everyone can help in thinking about the situation)? with easterly winds, something that is factored into the passage plan to allow extra room, including the shoaling Situational awareness: Does your port or vessel monitor waters to the south of the berth; this knowledge allowed me changes to the situation such as another vessel coming to decide on early, positive and bold avoidance measures alongside and using the same bollards? quickly, rather than allowing the risk