A recent incident involving a bulk carrier in ballast condition highlights the dangers of improvisation and inadequate risk management during anchor handling.
A bulk carrier, which was in ballast condition, weighed the port anchor and left the anchorage to execute a sea passage. While heaving the anchor, when it came into view, the crew members observed that its flukes were positioned improperly. They immediately stopped the process to restore their proper position.
However, the little time between the observation and the preventive action allowed for one of the flukes to enter the hawsepipe and eventually to become stuck. The master ordered the crew to secure the anchor in this position temporarily, and the ship continued the sea passage to its next destination.
On the next day, while the ship was transiting, the crew members were ordered to carefully release the anchor and reposition it properly. They tried to free it by lowering and heaving it several times, but their efforts were unsuccessful.
While the ship was still transiting the master instructed that a crew member should go over the side of the vessel, on a rope ladder, under the chief mate’s supervision, and pass a mooring line over the crown of the anchor, aiming to pull it free, by using the winches. However, this alternative method was also unsuccessful.
The next day the crew came up with another potential solution which included the use of a hydraulic jack. This auxiliary equipment was supposed to be placed into the hawsepipe and then to be used to move the chain and subsequently dislodging the anchor’s fluke.
At this point a crew member got into the hawsepipe to position the equipment against the anchor, an action that can be characterized as extremely dangerous especially when the ship is underway.
While the seafarer was trying to do the job, the anchor chain suddenly moved with a jerk and unfortunately pinned him against the wall of the hawsepipe, causing his fatal injury.
The man was retrieved from the hawsepipe motionless and unconscious. Even though first aid was provided immediately the man never revived.
After this tragic human loss, the ship was forced to alter its course and deviate from its passage to disembark the victim’s body.
Identifying contributing factors
The ship should not have left the anchorage before its crew managed to secure the anchor properly. If they failed to do so with their own means, then the worst-case scenario would be for the managing company or the owners to bear potential costs required for external support. However, this option was probably never discussed or adopted and therefore leaving the anchorage posed additional obstacles, especially when the crew tried to fix the issue with the ship being underway.
In addition to the ship’s sailing with the anchor being secured improperly, the plans of the master to order a crew member to go over the side of the ship, at the bow while underway, or then to get into the hawsepipe to position the auxiliary equipment constitute clear evidence of his unclear and confused thinking, as well as the absence of any kind of critical thinking.
Furthermore, the entire situation revealed another crucial factor related to master’s behavior. The chief mate was clearly against the proposed by the master practices and eventually he refused to participate. Notwithstanding his voicing concerns and objections, the master ignored the warnings and continued the attempts he had already planned in his mind which eventually resulted in a human casualty.
A risk assessment regarding the potential hazards that may arise while trying to counter the situation was neither conducted, nor did a list with actions, shorted by their risk level, existed.
Alternative methods to counter the incident
Since the incident occurred while the ship was in the anchorage area, it should have remained there without sailing until the issue was resolved properly, either with own means or external support.
Sending a man over the side at a ship’s bow (on a rope ladder) or having someone enter the hawsepipe are practices not unknown. They are used when everything is secured properly, mainly for maintenance reasons, and when PPE is in place. They remain though challenging options, triggering the crewmembers’ safety limits. Nevertheless, when used the ship must remain steady and never sail. Furthermore, the weather conditions must not affect the ship moving in any other direction even if it does not sail.
When a challenge or an emergency arises, the decision-makers need to use a cool head to make plans to overcome unpleasant situations. Risk assessments/analysis of the potential hazards and the available methods to counter them must be made. Not to mention that the foregoing process is paramount, when time allows to develop it.
Risk analysis helps decision makers to choose the option that provides maximum safety.
Additionally, if the latter does not work the engaged personnel is able to understand the increased risk levels of the rest alternative methods and prepare themselves accordingly to deal with them.
Overall assessment
The tragic incident likely could have been prevented if a thorough risk analysis had been conducted, if the master had been more open-minded in making decisions by considering and analyzing all available information from the crew engaged with the stuck anchor, and if the crew members had been willing to execute the task only under safer conditions, specifically with the ship completely stationary and unaffected by weather conditions.
