Lessons learned: Foot injury on telescoping gangway

The incident 

The incident occurred onboard a Service Operation Vessel (SOV) performing Walk-2-Work duties at an offshore wind farm. The vessel was positioned port side to the Wind Turbine Generator (WTG), with a maximum wave height of 3 m impacting the port quarter and a swell of 2.8 m impacting the starboard bow.

With the vessel in an optimal position relative to the connection point on the WTG and the prevailing weather, the gangway operator was given permission to make the connection. The gangway operator stood at the base of the telescoping access bridge and used the walkaround box (mobile remote control) to make the connection, which is customary. The gangway operator had difficulty making the connection due to vessel movement and retracted the gangway to reassess the weather conditions.

The conditions were determined to be within the capabilities of the gangway system, and a second attempt was made to connect. The gangway operator again was unable to make the connection and retracted the gangway. During this retraction, the telescoping section of the gangway frame traveled over the gangway operator’s right foot, entrapping it and causing a compound fracture.

Underlying causes

• A gap exists between the frame end and gangway floor grating. The injured party (IP) was standing in the entrapment zone while making the connection, and when the telescoping gangway section was retracted, the combination of this gap and the automatic motion compensation caused the gangway frame to travel over the IP’s right foot.

Root causes

• The ends of the telescoping gangway frame are engineered with a chamfer (approx. 45°), creating a gap between the gangway floor and the frame end.
• The final section of the travel path (soft stop) for the gangway frame was not guarded.
• Training delivered to gangway operators included standing on the Telescope Access Bridge platform (TAB) or in the operator shelter (cabin) during gangway connection attempts, normalizing the operators to this area.

Contributory factors

• The IP was focused on making the gangway connection amid difficult vessel movements and became situationally unaware of his position on the gangway.
• The vessel risk assessment for the operation did not specify the foot entrapment hazard or the control measures necessary to prevent the injury.

Lessons learned 

1. Install guarding along the exposed soft stop of the gangway to ensure a person cannot place their feet in the path of the retracting gangway frame, and install a physical barrier at the base of the telescopic gangway section to prevent the operator from encountering the gangway when it is fully retracted.
2. Update the gangway operator training program to focus on entrapment and shearing potential areas on the gangway. This should include no-go areas for operators and transferring technicians and be part of the gangway operator’s assessment at the end of the course.
3. Develop a set of sea state/vessel movement limits for gangway connections that gangway operators can use to make informed decisions on when to stop the job (this must be independent of the vessel’s station-keeping abilities).
4. Assess the gangway operator shelter and determine what changes are required to make the cabin more user-friendly for the operator.
5. All SOVs in the fleet should conduct a targeted hazard identification activity of their respective gangway systems to determine if any shear or entrapment potentials exist (regardless of the likelihood of occurrence).
6. All SOVs in the fleet should review their existing Walk-2-Work risk assessments to ensure shear and entrapment hazards are recorded with suitable control measures.
7. Develop an onsite competency assessment and refresher program for gangway operators to:
   • Ensure good practices are adopted
   • Update knowledge
   • Assess skill levels
   • Transfer lessons learned
   • Detect and correct unwanted operator habits